Agreements & MOUs - The Ganga: Water Use in the Indian Subcontinent - page 146

have to restrict the use of the Ganga water to only 10% until the plan to aug-
ment the Ganga flow was accepted. Other Indian newspapers also questioned the
accord. Experts also criticized it in the meetings of the Bengal National Chamber
of Commerce, Indian National Chamber of Commerce and other organizations.
Debesh Mukherjee ex-General Manager of the Farakka Barrage also held that the
accord would not achieve aims.
The joint declaration of May, 1974 and the agreement of April 1975 were
not followed in letter and spirit before the 1977 agreement was signed. Detailed
observations in respect of gauge, discharge etc. to be made in the Bhagirathi-
Hooghly in India and in the Garai-Madhumati-Dhaleswar, the Bhairab-Pussar and
the Padma-Meghna in Bangladesh as well as hydrographic surveys and navigation
track surveys, salinity, rainfall data, exchange of information through Joint River
Commission to study the effects of increased lean-season flow in the Bhagirathi-
Hooghly and corresponding decrease in the Padma-Meghna and its tributaries from
1975 to 1977 were not considered before signing the 1977 agreement.
In spite of all these odds, the long-standing dispute between India and
Bangladesh was somehow resolved through the Ganges Water Agreement for shar-
ing of water in the lean season from 1 st January to 31 st May, each year. Both
sides made substantial concessions to safeguard respective interests. For India, the
Agreement was quite detrimental to the interest of Calcutta Port as the minimum
requirement of 40,000 cusecs was gradually reduced to 20,500 cusecs by end-April
with provision for further reduction during abnormally low-flow season, as provided
in Article II. From March to May, tides in the Hooghly are quite high and the water
level reaches the maximum. Enormous quanties of sand and silt move upstream with
the flow tide and much of the same get deposited on the bed. As upland discharge
falls in these months, the ebb flow is not strong and siltation occur. The reduced
discharge does not give enough force to the ebb current and therefore, does not help
scour the deposited silt which gets continuously deposited and reduce the river's
capacity. Thus, the interest of Calcutta Port was not protected in the Agreement.
India had to remain satisfied with the low discharge of 20,500 cusecs, which is
about 49% less than the minimum requirement of 40,000 cusecs. Moreover, India's
original demand of sharing water from March to May was compromised in favour
of sharing the same in fully dry season from January to May. However, India's
demand for a short-term agreement was met, as it was valid for five years only
and could be reviewed after three years, as provided in Article XIII. Moreover,
New Delhi's demand for a long-term solution to the problem by augmenting the
dry-season flow of the Ganga at Farakka was safeguarded in Articles - VIII to X.
Bangladesh's demand of the entire 'historic flow' of the river was not fulfilled and it
had to divert 20,500 cusecs to India in the driest period. Dhaka's subsequent demand
for 44,000 cusecs during negotiation was also curtailed to 34,500 cusecs in driest
period, a reduction by about 22%. Moreover, its original demand of water-sharing
from November to June was scarified. Its demand for a long-term agreement of 25
to 30 years validity was not accepted. In terms of legal language, the Agreement
was in the nature of a 'Pactum De Contrahendo ', i.e. 'an Agreement to conclude a
final agreement at a later date.'