Inconsistency, or A Conspiracy? - The Ganga: Water Use in the Indian Subcontinent - page 126

sanctioned in 1968 to get water from other tributaries under a project, called
'Sarda Assist'. Under it, no new canal is to be constructed except a feeder
to supply water to various canals, excavated decades ago. However, the Kosi
and the Gandak projects were sanctioned in 1956 and 1958, respectively, much
before the Farakka project went on stream in 1975.
The importance and necessity of adequate flow of the Ganga through the feeder
canal were highlighted by those associated with the Farakka project. They empha-
sized in their reports that water from the Farakka feeder canal should not be
permitted to be used for irrigation purposes. West Bengal did not get any canal
water for irrigation and not a single drop is now formally allowed from the feeder
canal for any other purpose, whereas in the upper reaches, the Ganga water is
diverted for major and minor irrigation schemes, sanctioned by the Government
of India after the Farakka Barrage project was approved without considering, how
such diversion in lean season would affect water discharge and diversion from the
barrage. As reported by S. B. Sen Sharma, 1986, some 204 major and minor irri-
gation schemes have been sanctioned to draw water from the upper reaches of the
Ganga in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar after 1975. The total volume of water, diverted to
these projects, amounted, until 1995, to about 14.5 million acre feet, of which sur-
face water component was 9.5 million acre feet. To this has to be added about one
million acre feet water to industrial towns and complexes, located on the banks. A
sizeable quantity is additionally drawn by unauthorized pumping from the river-bed
in upstream provinces. North India claims a very major share of the Ganga water
before it reaches Farakka. No scheme has ever been formulated to rationalize the
share of the river water among the three riparian States, while the burden of its decay
owing to reduced flow falls entirely on West Bengal and Kolkata. It is obvious that
the Government of India, or of UP and Bihar, gave no over-riding priority to, and
honour, the committed discharge for the Bhagirathi-Hooghly through the Farakka
feeder canal. These two states should be vitally interested in saving Calcutta port,
because it serves them as well as north-east India and three neighbouring countries
- Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. Besides, a large number of workers, employed in
Calcutta port and many industries on the banks of the river hail from UP and Bihar.
Dr. K. L. Rao whose statement in the Lok Sabha on 3rd May 1973 caused
this confusion and furore, contradicted himself, when in another scheme, 'National
Water Grid of India', he proposed linking the Ganga with the Kaveri for diverting
some 60,000 cusecs for 300 days in a year to the arid regions of Deccan (south
India) which does not have a perennial river of the stature of major north Indian
rivers. Dr. Rao's brain-child provoked Dr. Debesh Mukherjee to strongly criticize
it. He cited Constitutional obligations and described the Grid idea as impracti-
cal and utopian. He said, the Government of India Act 1935, from which India's
Constitution drew heavily, provided that a province could not do whatever it liked
with the water of a river and cause injury to any province, or State, lower down.
It follows, therefore, that the government of a basin State is entitled, under Indian
Constitution, to use the waters of a river, flowing through its territory for irrigation,
hydro power, flood control etc. but in exercising these powers, no significant injury