interlinking of rivers and the fate of india:

Interlinking of rivers and thefate of India:

A critical study of theecological, economic, socialand political implications

ByBIKASH MONDAL

(NHIT, Durgapur, west Bengal)&

SOUVIK SARKARAbstract:-According to statistics revealed by the United Nations, theglobal population is expected to be around 7.9 billion by 2020 –a steep 50% rise in just 30 years, when compared with thedocumented figures of population in 1990. As a result of thisunprecedented growth in the global population, the ratio betweenthe number of people and the available freshwater resource willdeteriorate to such an extent that in 2025, a projectedpopulation of around 3 billion will have to face scarcity offresh water.

On the face of the fact that hydrological cycle primarilydetermines the availability of fresh water at various pockets onthe Earths surface, interlinking of rivers is perceived to be theonly feasible solution.

The recent directive of the Supreme Court of India to implementand complete the mammoth project of interlinking Indian riverswithin a stipulated timeframe of the year 2016 being only alatest addition.National River Linking Project (NRLP) on India, along with ashort discourse on the feasibility and suitability of differentaspects of the same.

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

3. Proposed Plan For Interlinking OfRivers

4. Water Situation In India and The Challenge of Interlinking

5. The Financing Challenges

6. Rain Water Harvesting : An Alternative To Interlinking

7. Conclusion

8. Bibliography

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Interlinking of major rivers in India, aimed at modifying theacute spatial inequity in the availability of water resources inIndia, has its origin in the ideas of K.L.Rao and Captain Dastur,in the form of Ganga-Cauvery Link Canal and the Garland Canalrespectively. Both these ideas were considered to be mere dreamsand not feasible projects by the Ministry of Water Resources. In

recent years, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) hascome up with a proposal for a set of inter-basin transfer canals.The Supreme Court has asked that these projects of inter-basintransfers be completed in the next 10 years or so. While theurgency for assured supply of domestic water needs for allcitizens of India is unquestionably accepted, the present paperexamines whether the proposed inter-basin water transfer projectprovides the best mechanism to address this question in terms ofenvironmental sustainability, regional equity and economicalfeasibility. In the total absence of technical data andfeasibility studies from the public domain, the paper, afterexamining the available ideas and information on the interlinkingproject, takes the position that supply of domestic water needscould be better assured with the help of much less costly waterharvesting and consumption projects at local levels. The paperthen questions the wisdom of extending irrigation facilities tothe drier areas, instead of promoting watershed management forincreasing food production. Instead the increased foodproduction, if at all needed, can come from more efficient watermanagement and productivity increase in the presently irrigatedareas. The paper then finds the only justification for theproposed project on interlinking in making more water availableto the western and southern parts of India, for diversified andhighly lucrative use of land and for industrial uses. The paperidentifies the various social and environmental costs to begenerated by the proposed project and questions the logic behindthe investment of public funds to meet the very heavy costs ofthe project. It takes the position that the officialconfidentiality around the project could help in packaging andselling a highly cost-ineffective project as a desirable one. Onthis basis, the paper stresses the need for a totally transparenttechno-economic and environmental feasibility study of theproject and comparison with other possible solutions, before theinterlinking project is approved.

INTRODUCTION

What comes to mind when we think of a river? The gush of waterthat traverses varied landscapes, picking up soil, minerals, anda whole lot of nutrients along the way, offering them to humanbeings and animals, and even supporting the tiniest life forms.The river has so much to offer us, yet we never understand itsimportance in our daily lives. Where some tribal and localcommunities still worship the river, others have causeddestruction and wreaked havoc by obstructing the natural flow ofrivers by building dams and canals. How justified are ourdecisions when we intrude into the paths of our rivers? Thelandscape writes the river’s course, the gravity decides itsdownward flow. The valleys and mountains, slopes and gradient,and the soil, in turn, design the river’s path. Rain or snowmeltnourishes and maintains the stream.A river is much beyond water being wasted into the sea. The flowof the river is a dynamic phenomenon, dependent on the rainsreceived and the status of the catchment. Viewing the river as amere ‘water supplier’ would be undermining its value. Accordingto the findings of the World Commission on Dams, the mostimportant impact of dams is the physical transformation ofrivers. The World Resources Institute estimates that at least one

large dam modifies 46% of the world’s 106 primary watersheds. TheInternational Water Law classifies rivers into national,international, and internationalized rivers. The national riveris one where the entire course flows within the territory of asingle country; an international river is that which flowsthrough the territory of one or more countries or forms aninternational boundary. An internationalized river is a riverwhich, whether originally national or international, has beensubjected to a special conventional regime between two countries.

PROPOSED PLAN FOR INTERLINKING OF RIVERS

The Prime Minister in his address to the National Water ResourcesCouncil (NWRC) commending the National water Policy (NWP) 2002,for adoption did not refer to the subject of interlinking ofrivers. Instead he favored community control over waterresources. However, subsequently the government chose to ignorethe view expressed by the Prime Minister at the NWRC by settingup a task force to execute the gigantic proposal of interlinkingof rivers. Economically, similar enthusiasm was lacking in thecase of decentralized initiatives like the rainwater harvestingand watershed development programs.

The National Water Development Agency which was established in1982 to work out basin wise surpluses and deficits and study thepossibilities of storage, links and transfers, has identified 30river links, which would connect every major rivers in the Indianmainland, and has prepared a feasibility report on six of these.The interlinking of rivers has two components: the Himalayancomponent and a peninsular one. The Himalayan component envisagesconstruction of reservoirs on the principal tributaries of theGanga and the Brahmaputra in India and Nepal, along with transferof water from the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to the west,apart from linking the Brahmaputra to the Ganga and the Ganga tothe Mahanadi. The general idea is to transfer the water from the

southern Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan and perhapssouthwards to the peninsular component.

The Peninsular component consists of interlinking of theMahanadi-Godavari-Krishna-Pennar-Cauvery, diversion of the westflowing rivers of Kerala and Karnataka to the east, interlinkingthe west flowing rivers north of Mumbai and south of Tapti andinterlinking river Ken with Chambal. All interlinking schemesobviously are for the purpose of transferring water from oneriver system to another, aided by either gravity flows (tunnelingthrough mountains) or by lifting across natural basins. The abovelinks are meant to carry water from surplus areas to deficitones. There are two areas where we have a surplus of water-theBrahmaptura-Meghna system and the Western Ghats where the riverscarry much of the annual precipitation into the Arabian Sea. TheBrahmaputra valley is certainly surplus in water, causing floodsannually creating a perennial problem.

The mandate of the NWDA is to complete the feasibility report oflink schemes. The steps involved in the implementation of thelink schemes after the completion of the feasibility reports are:-

Negotiations and interstate agreements among the concernedstates to arrive at a consensus regarding the shaving ofsurplus water and other project related agreement.

Preparation of detailed project reports. Techno-economic and environmental approvals and investment

clearance by the Planning Commission Financing arrangement and mode of funding Execution of link projects

The project is claimed to be an answer to the country’s problemof recurring floods and the droughts in different areas, thegeneration of cheap hydroelectric power is also put forward as ajustification. It is being hailed as a phenomenal project tounite all the people of the country and give a developmentalimpetus of unprecedented magnitude.

WATER SITUATION IN INDIA AND THE CHALLENGE OFINTERLINKING

The concept of interlinking is evidentially appealing toconsiderable sections of the general public and to policy makers.In a country which quenches its thirst fed with erratic rainfall

patterns and its skewed distribution, uneven climatic patternranges from the overfed Cheerapunji, receiving the maximumrainfall in the world to the generally arid and semi-arid regionsof the western and southern India thriving on as little as 100millimeter cubic rain. It is in this backdrop that interlinkingof rivers is proposed as a major policy option to rejuvenate theparched lands, the signed earth and the frayed tempers.However, even as all these claims may be true about the impendingwater crisis, on a careful examination of the entire proposal tointerlink major river basins, the NationalCommission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan(NCIWRDP) made following observations: “There seems to be noimperative necessity for massive water transfer. The assessedneeds of the basins could be met from full development andefficient utilization of intra-basin resources except in the caseof Cauvery and Vaigai.

The point which needs to be understood over here is that it isnot primarily drinking water needs but the large demands ofirrigation that lead to proposals for long-distance watertransfer, though the waters so transferred may also be used tomeet drinking water requirements. However the belief thatinterlinking is necessary to ensure adequate and safe watersupply to everyone and everywhere is usually misplaced. Domesticuse currently accounts for a mere five percent of the total useof water harnessed through canals, wells and tube-wells. Therequirements are no doubt growing rapidly but will still berelatively small compared to those of other uses. Interlinking ishardly justified as the solution for this problem. Even ifinterlinking were justified for other reasons, it will not bepossible to take the water to all the habitations without hugeinvestments in a centralized distribution network. Decentralizedlocal rainwater harvesting, by reviving and improving traditionaltechniques can meet essential requirements for domestic purposesmore effectively and at a far lower cost.

Implementation of the Project

The popular appeal of interlinking of rivers is based on theunderstanding that an enormous amount of water of our river flowsinto the sea and that if only this is prevented, and watertransferred from water abundant rivers to water-deficit areas,there will be adequate supply for everyone in every part of thecountry. At another level, the project is seen as promotingnational integration and a fair sharing of the country’s naturalwater wealth. Both these presumptions are far too simplistic.

Whether the linking of rivers will promote integration orgenerate more disputes and tensions is a moot question. While theprinciples on the basis of which riparian states can share waterhave been established over time internationally and in thevarious agreements between States, the transfer of river waterfrom a surplus basin to a deficit one has no such agreedprinciples. The states that are not riparian are assumed not tohave any claims to the water of the rivers.

Therefore a transfer of water from one basin to another, which isgoing to be used predominantly for commercial purposes likeagriculture in the areas in which the water will be transferred,should be done only by mutual consent and a commercial agreementby which the state (or country) that receives water pays thedonor state a certain amount. It water from Beyond or Bihar issought to be transferred to Gujarat or Rajasthan, it is onlylegitimate that these states pay for the water that they get fromother states or part with some other resources which they have inplenty and which are lacking in the water rich states of northand north-east, say resources like solar energy, which thesestates manufacture in bulk. Any other basis for transfer of wateris bound to be unacceptable as no state is likely to transferwater to another foregoing possible future use of such water.

There are also important institutional and legal issues to besorted out. There is no mechanism as of now to deal with mattersconcerning inter-basin transfers. In this regard a proposal thatis being floated is that the rivers should be nationalized and

the control of the water grid should rest with the centre. It ishighly unlikely that the states will agree to rest thecontrolling authority with the centre. In the absence ofconsensus among the states over the project, if the centre goesahead with existing laws and procedures for dealing with waterallocation between the states within the same basin one cansafely assume that this project is going to breed furtheranimosity and give rise to a plethora of litigations. We knowfrom experience how contentions, prolonged and difficult thisprocess is. This caution is both wise and understandable, giventhe complexity of the issues induced and the fact that courtshave no means to enforce the judgment on river water disputes andthe record of compliance by Governments is at best mixed. Thesequestions are pertinent and basic to a considered assessment ofthe river-linking program. In the absence of satisfactoryanswers, criticisms of the decision to go ahead with theimplementation of the project are reasonable and legitimate.

Possible Linkages and the Determination ofSurplus Water

A closer examination of the interlinking idea raises severalquestions. First, it is based on the presumption that there arelarge surplus flows in some basins and that the physical transferis feasible in terms of physical engineering and can beaccomplished economically without creating any adverse impact.

The Himalayan component of interlinking project envisages linkingthe Brahmputra to the Ganga upstream of Farakka to meet the needsof Bangladesh and West Bengal. Unless the Ganga flow can beaugmented, India is bound by its agreement with Bangladesh not todisturb the flow into Bangladesh of the Ganga. The Brahmaputra-Ganga link has two possible alignments, one of which is throughBangladesh and the other passing entirely through IndianTerritory (the Siliguri chicken neck). Bangladesh has alreadyrejected the proposal for linking Brahmaputra through Bangladesh.

The other alignment through Siliguri involves large scale liftingof water and does not appear to be economically viable. Thus boththe proposed links have serious problems without addressing whichthe interlinking of the Ganga and the Brahmputra is not possible.Without this linkage the whole idea of transferring water fromnorth to south and westernIndia becomes impossible because it is the Brahmputra valley,which has surplus water, and not Ganga and therefore this link isabsolutely crucial.

Another important factor, which is going to be very crucial forthe successful implementation of the project, will be the timelyrelease of water from the surplus basin to the deficit basin. Itwould be imperative for this to have a basis for thedetermination of surplus basins and the magnitude of the surplus.The bad experience in the Cauvery basin should serve as a lessonfor any endeavor at sharing of river water between various statesand should certainly be kept in mind before determining any basisfor future. The volume of flows during the flood season ismisleading as a basis for judging surpluses. Nor can the regionswhere floods occur be considered water surplus. Most of them mayhave floods during the monsoon but have inadequate water for usein the dry season.

Substantial tracts in these regions do not have the benefit ofirrigation. Estimates of surplus made by Central agencies such asNational Water Development Agency are hotly contested by thestates. A more serious difficulty arises from the fact that mostof the flow in practically all rivers occurs during southwestmonsoon. Published data from official sources show that 90percent of the flow in south Indian rivers occurs between May andNovember. Data on the Indo-Gangetic and Brahmaputra river basinsare classified. Being perennial, the proportion of the total flowoccurring during these months may be somewhat smaller but not allthat much smaller. For instance, over 80 per cent of the annualflow in the Kosi is between May and November, and almost threefourths between June and October.

The monsoon happens to be the season when rainfall in theaggregate is adequate for crop growth. Of course in some regions,such as Rajasthan and parts of Gujarat and the Deccan, even theKharif rain is far too low and variable for productiveagriculture. In some others, more water could help switch to moreproductive crop patterns. These “deficit” regions are far fromthose considered “surplus” requiring transport over verydifficult terrain and long distances.

Moreover, since the surplus occurs in the rainy reason and thedemand in the dry season, it is not enough to merely carry thewater from one point to another. Large storages will benecessary. One needs to know the quantum of water to be stored,and whether and where potential sites on the required scale areavailable. The maps and the sketchy accounts in the media andofficial pronouncements tell us little on these aspects. If thesemaps accurately reflects the concept of the interlinking projectsought to be implemented, it will only mean that instead of thesurplus flows flowing to the Bay of Bengal via the Ganges and theBrahmaputra and the Mahanadi, they will flow to the sea throughthe Krishna, the Godavari, the Pennar or wherever.

An Ecologically Destructive Exercise

Enthusiasts of interlinking project tend to be dismissive of theconcerns over the environmental and human consequences of theproject. They claim that these fears are vastly exaggerated orargue that they are unavoidable costs of “development” and thatthey should not be allowed to hold back the project. One has tobe extraordinarily insensitive not to recognize the consequencesof ignoring these aspects in our water resource planning in thepast. They are reflected in the callous manner in which displacedpersons have been treated, land degradation due to misusage ofwater, depletion of groundwater and the growing pollution ofwater resources. The experience of the Indira Gandhi Canal is astark example of the problems arising in the wake of bringing invast amounts of water without adequate understanding of andconcern for its impact on the fragile desert ecology. Among thelong list of adverse ecological impacts is the destruction ofinnumerable sensitive aquatic ecosystems because of changes intemperature and flow regimes. This alteration of the chemical andbiophysical properties of the river has not only caused the lossof estuarine fisheries downstream of the dam, in many instances,but has also impacted water quality very severely. The losses dueto poor water quality in India are staggering. The World Bankestimates the health costs of water pollution alone to beequivalent of three percent of the GDP. With the majority of theIndian rivers being severely polluted, interlinking them mayactually increase these costs.

Furthermore, with the widely recognized failure of the GangaAction Plan, contaminants from the Ganga basin are expected toenter other basins and destroy the natural cleansing processes ofother river basins. If the clean-up of the main rivers involvedin this interlinking project has been such a dismal failure, doesit not portend doom for the sanitation levels of other rivers?

The new areas that will be river-fed after the introduction ofthe scheme may experience crop failures or rotting due to aliencontaminants and compounds carried into other streams from thedirty Ganges. It has been argued that similar projects have beenundertaken elsewhere without catastrophic consequences. Thisclaim may be true, but only partially. If we project the successof interlinking in France or Israel to support a similar projectin India, we can’t probably overlook the dismal failure at AralSea caused by a similar venture, resulting in the virtual deathof that sea. That is now recognized as a great environmentaldisaster, perhaps the greatest ever, and desperate attempts arebeing made to reverse the phenomena. Even the widely perceivedleader of the 20th century in the field of water resourceplanning, the USA has realized its folly in building big dams andhas taken up the task of large scale decommissioning of damsevery year and restoring the natural flow of rivers likeColorado. In such a situation, because China has embarked uponits massive three Gorges Project, whose impact will be seen onlyin the due course, that can’t serve as a good model for us tofollow, as argued by some sections. With the “linking of rivers”project, we may actually be headed for other unforeseen disastersand may discover them too late. The situation therefore demandsexercise of a degree of caution before we embark on thisenterprise.

With the recognition of “precautionary principle” under theenvironmental jurisprudence of our country, the “onus of proof”is clearly on the government to show as to how a project likeinterlinking of rivers, fraught with serious consequences and itspotential for irreversible damage, is environmentally benign.This would require a thorough Environmental Impact Assessment andfeasibility studies of the proposed links. Let the information beput into the public domain for experts and all the concernedgroups to offer their informed comments. This massive undertakingis too important a matter to be left entirely to the internalprocesses of the Government. Till this is done, it is difficultto believe that the interlinking program has been worked out in

sufficient detail to qualify for serious examination, leave aloneimmediate implementation.

THE FINANCING CHALLENGES

The rivers inter-linking feasibility reports completed by 2013,suggest the following investment needs and potential economicimpact:

Inter-linkproject

Length

(km)

EstimatedCost in theyear 2003or earlier#

Newirrigati

oncapacityadded

(hectares)

Potential

Electricity

generation

capacity

Drinking&

Industrial wateradded(Mm3)

Srisailam Pennar

Link203.6 1580 crore (U

S$250 million) 187,372 17 MW 49

Polavaram-

Vijayawada Link

1741483.91 crore (US$230 millio

n)314,718 72 MW 664

ParbatiKalisind

hChambal

243.76114.5 crore (US$960 millio

n)225,992 17 MW 89

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rupee



Inter-linkproject

Length

(km)


Newirrigati

oncapacityadded

(hectares)

Potential

Electricity

generation

capacity

Drinking&


Par TapiNarmadaLink

395 6016 crore (US$940 million) 169,000 93 MW 91

PambaAchankov

ilVaipparLink

50.71397.91 crore (US$220 millio

n)91,400 500 MW 150

NagarjunasagarSomasila

Link

3936320.54 crore (US$990 millio

n)168,017 90 MW 124

MahanadiGodavari

Link827.7

17540.54 crore (US$2.8 bill

ion)363,959 70 MW 802

Krishna- Pennar

Link587.2

6599.80 crore (US$1.0 billio

n)258,334 42.5 MW 56

Ken 231.5 1988.74 crore 47,000 72 MW 2,225














Inter-linkproject

Length

(km)


Newirrigati

oncapacityadded

(hectares)

Potential

Electricity

generation

capacity

Drinking&


BetwaLink

(US$310 million)

Godavari-

KrishnaLink

299.326289 crore (US$4.1 billion

)287,305 70 MW 237

Damanganga

PinjalLink

42.5 1278 crore (US$200 million) - - 44

Cauvery-Vaigai-GundarLink

255.6 2673 crore (US$420 million) 337,717 - 185

# The cost conversion in US $ is at latest conversion price onthe historical cost estimates in Indian rupees.







RAIN WATER HARVESTING: AN ALTERNATIVE TOINTERLINKING

The water crisis faced by India today stems largely from theskewed rainfall that it receives. Much of the 4,000 billion cubicmeters of rain the country receives falls in just 100 hours outof the total of 8,760 hours in a year. Therefore, the trick totackle the severe and widespread water problem of India lies incapturing enough water in these 100 hours in the very areas whereit falls in ways, which would lose for the rest of the parchedyear.

Any attempt by the government to ensure round the year wateravailability in all parts of the country to meet the basicrequirements of people, would succeed only with the participationof people in such programs. A community’s sense of ownership andcontrol of natural resources has been found to be a keydeterminant for ensuring this sustainability. There seems to belittle hydrological wisdom in letting rainwater flow down intothe river, which is then dammed and much energy is wasted to pumpthis water back to those very fields where this water originallyfell as rain. It makes much greater sense to trap the water insmall structure in the villages itself. We have rich traditionsof community-based water harvesting and management in India, eachof them well suited to the needs of a specific environment. Thepotential of rainwater harvesting in meeting household needs isenormous. It is a fact that there is no village in India thatcannot meet its drinking water needs from rainwater harvesting32,Apart from household water needs rainwater harvesting has thepotential to meet agricultural requirements as well. Rainwaterharvesting has the capacity to contribute towards eradication ofpoverty amongst a substantial section of rural India. Inaddition, it can increase groundwater availability throughrecharge mechanisms and prevent floods by reducing storm waterrunoff.

A shining example in this regard is the community effort toharvest rainwater and recharge the aquifers in Alwar district ofRajasthan: its success has revived the Arvari, which had notflown in the last 40 years. Similar district-and watershed-levelexperiences from Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Andhra Pradeshprovide continuing proof that community-based and participatorywater management is a realistic and replicable strategy for thenation. It would have the benefit of making each villageresponsible for its own water storage and use. The cost of suchinitiatives would be a fraction of the proposed river-interlinking plan and it would be easy to maintain and repair.The social cost of displacement would also not exist or beminimal. Most importantly, by making each village responsible forits own water security, this would encourage more responsiblefarming practices and would thus serve as a tool for socialchange, supporting poverty alleviation and providing communities’rights over resources.

The top priority of our water policy, therefore, should be todevelop the potential of decentralized people-centered watermanagement, couple it with modern water science and technology,and harness it to tackle the challenges posed by our currentwater situation. That would also be the best way to giveexpression to the views expressed by the Prime Minister, ShriAtal Bihari Vajpayee on April 1, 2002, when in his address to theNational Water Resources Council he favored community controlover water resources as the model on which the National WaterPolicy should be shaped for an effective water resourcemanagement strategy for the nation at all times in future.

CONCLUSION

The interlinking project if implemented would lead toconstruction of canals running into thousands of kilometers andsome 200 storage dams. The obvious fallout of this massive

construction would be the displacement of around four and a halflakh people and the submergence of nearly 79,000 hectares offorest land. It is a recognized principle of international lawthat no human being can be sacrificed at the altar of economicgrowth and while encouraging any development project, its effecton the community must first and foremost be taken intoconsideration. The ILO Convention 107, which has been ratified byIndia, under Article 11, recognizes both collective andindividual rights over the lands, which the indigenous and othertribal and semi-tribal populations have traditionally occupied.The Convention protect them by forbidding their removal fromtheir habitual territories without their free consent, and incases where removal of these populations is absolutely necessary,Article 12 of the Convention speaks about providing a humane oreffective settlement. There also stands a unanimous resolution ofthe UN Commission of Human Rights, adopted in March 1993, whichheld forced eviction as gross violation of human rights.

In the light of these international obligations and with thedoctrine of incorporation as carved out by the Indian judiciaryin the context of Article 51 of the Constitution, especially inthe light of the Visakha dictum, the state is under an obligationto protect the interests of the tribal and the backwardpopulations, which are sections which have been the worst hit asa result of these kinds of developmental project. This obligationof the state to secure the lives of ‘project affected persons’has led to the enactment of the 73rd and 74th amendments of theConstitution, as also the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extensionto the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 whereby the village communitiesfor the first time have been granted legal recognition as acommunity entity. It has also recognized their control over theircommons including their water resources. It is important to note,that the significance of command over community resources hasbeen recognized not in isolation, or as a mere economic issue,but in relation to the cultural identity of the people itself.Thus, through the new Act, the state recognizes the relationshipbetween the communities and the commons, hence bestowing a verysignificant and pivotal role to the village communities to

safeguard their interests and empowering them to meet thechallenges both from within and outside. With the recognition oftribal and local communities’ claims over their communityresources under the Constitution, any attempt at usurping therights of the local communities, by allowing a centralized stateto act undemocratically on the principle of trust doctrine, foroperationalizing river linking project in the garb of ‘publicinterest’ would be in clear violation of the constitutional normsand our international obligations.

Looking at the shoddy manner in which the rehabilitation policieshave been implemented in the past, there is very little room forany kind of optimism for this latest misadventure of the CentralGovernment. Under these circumstances, any attempt at denying thetribal communities their rights over their land and waterresources invoking the archaic Land Acquisition Act of 1894 wouldbe patently unjust. The Rural Development Ministry of the CentralGovernment which has been holding the “Rehabilitation Policy” onits desk for last so many years, just gives a clue about thekeenness and the urgency which the government attaches tosafeguarding the interests of the ‘project affected people’ whohave got displaced from their habitats of centuries, for theimplementation of these large scale projects. Under thesecircumstances, the ill planned and the hasty river linkingproject would lead to further marginalization and disarticulationof these socially and economically disadvantaged sections of ourpopulation, leading to the denial of their basic human right toleave a peaceful life with dignity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amarasinghe,U,A., Sharma, B., Aloysius, N., Scott, C., Smakhtin,V., de Fraiture, C., 2005,Spatial Variation in Wter Supply and Demand across River Basinsin India. Research

report 83, Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water ManagementInstitute

Amarasinghe, U. A., Shah, T., Singh, O.P., and Bhaduri, A. 2006.Changing consumptionpatterns in India and Implication for water demand (Draftprepared for the IWMICPWFproject on “Stretegic Analysis of National River Linking Projectof India)

Autobee, R. 1996. Colorado-Big Thompson Project, United StatesBureau ofReclamation (USBR), Denver, Colorado, USA.www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/cbt1.html#CO

Bagla, P. (2006). Controversial Rivers Project Aims to turnIndia's Fierce Monsoon into aFriend. Main story: Going Against the Flow by Richard Stone andHawk Jia.Science, Vol. 313, 25 August, 2006. AAAS, Washington D. C., USA

Verghese, B.G. (2003). Exaggerated Fears on “Linking Rivers”.Himal SouthAsian,September 2003.http://www.himalmag.com/2003/september/response.html

Earle, A. and Turton, A. 2005. No duck No dinner: How SoleSourcing TriggeredLesotho’s Struggle against Corruption. World Water Week,Stockholm.

Falkenmark, M., Lundqvist, J., and Widstrand, C. 1989. Macro-scale water scarcity requiresmicro-scale approaches: Aspects of vulnerability in semi-ariddevelopment. NaturalResources Forum 13 (4): 258_267.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 2006 FAOSTAT Database,Rome: FAO

GOI (Government of India). 1999. Report of the National PlanningCommission: IntegratedWater Resources Development. India: Government of India

Hornby, B. 1993. Water Policy Has Changed -- Attitudes willFollow. 11 July 1993,Denver Post, Colorado, USAICOLD (International Commission of Large Dams) 2000. WorldRegister of Dams 1998:Updating 2000 for China. Paris: International Commission on LargeDams.

IUCN. 2003. The Lesotho Highlands Water Project: EnvironmentalFlow Allocations inan International River.www.waterandnature.org/flow/cases/Lesotho.pdf

IWMI (International Water Management Institute) 2000. World watersupply and demand1995 to 2025. Draft report prepared for World Water Vision.Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMIIyer, R.(2003) Water: Perspectives, Issues Concerns, at NewDelhi, Sage Publications

Kumar, D., Singh, O.P., Samad, M., Purohit, C., and Didyala,M.S., 2006a. WaterProductivity of Irrigated Agriculture in India: Potential areasfor improvement. (Draftprepared for the IWMI-CPWF project on “Strategic Analysis ofNational RiverLinking Project of India)

Kumar, D. M., Samad, M., Amarasinghe, U., and Singh, O.P. 2006b.Water Savings and

yield Enhancing Technologies” How far can they contribute towater productivityenhancement in Indian Agriculture? (Draft prepared for the IWMI-CPWF projecton “Strategic Analysis of National River Linking Project ofIndia)

Mahmood, A. and Kundu, A. 2006. Demographic Projections for India2006-2051: Regionalvariations (Draft prepared for the IWMI-CPWF project on“Strategic Analysis ofNational River Linking Project of India)

Mochebelele, R T. 2000. Lesotho Highlands Water Project- Concernsand Benefits ofDams including the Environmental and Social Impacts and theAssociatedMitigation Measures for Sustainability. World Commission on Dams.www.dams.org/kbase/submissions/sublist.php?rec=ins098

Nair, R and Radhakrishna, M.D. 2005 Interlinking of ivers forMitigation of Droughts. InVolume I – Water for Life with Special Reference to Interlinkingof Rivers.Proceedings of the Eleventh National Water Convention of India,May 11 2005 ed,New Delhi: National Water Development Agency

NWDA (National Water Development Agency) 2006. “The Need”,www.nwda.gov.in.Rath, N. (2003). Linking of rivers: Some elementary arithmetic.Economic and Political Weekly,Vol 38(29): 3032-3033

Shah, T. Aditi D. R., Asad S. Q. and Wang, J., 2003. SustainingAsia’s GroundwaterBoom: An Overview of Issues and Evidence.Natural Resources Forum,27 (2003)

http://www.dams.org/kbase/submissions/sublist.php?rec=ins098

130–140.

Shiva, Vandana (2003). River Linking: False Assumptions, FlawedRecipes. New Delhi,Navdanya. http://www.navdanya.org/articles/false_assumptions.html

Sharma et al 2006. Rainfed potential in India (Draft prepared forthe IWMI-CPWF project on“Stretegic Analysis of National River Linking Project of India)

Sinha, S.K., Sinha, A.K. and Chandra, S. 2005 Interlinking ofRivers- Issues and Challenges,In Volume I – Water for Life with Special Reference toInterlinking of Rivers.Proceedings of the Eleventh National Water Convention of India,May 11 2005 ed,New Delhi: National Water Development Agency

Snaddon, C.D., Davis, B.R., and Wishart, M. 1999. A Globaloverview of inter-basin WaterTransfer Schemes, with and appraisal of their Ecological, Socio-economic and Sociopoliticalimplications and recommendations for their management. WaterResearchCommission, Technology Transfer Report TT120/00. Pretoria, SouthAfrica: WaterResearch Commission

Vladimir et al 2006 Draft prepared for the IWMI-CPWF project on“Strategic Analysis ofNational River Linking Project of India

Vombatkere, S.G. 2003. Interlinking: Salvation or folly?http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/jan/wtr-sgvintlink.html

WCD (World Commission of Dams) 2000. Dams and Development. A NewFramework for

http://www.navdanya.org/articles/false_assumptions.html

Decision-Making. London, UK: EARTHSCAN

interlinking of rivers and the fate of india:

Documents