Tipai dam: A response to Dr. Rizvi
Enam A. Chaudhury
IN response to Dr. Gowher Rizvi's article in The Daily Star (DS) making a plea for national and scientific discussion on Tipaimukh, scores of learned articles have come out in different newspapers including the DS. I have not read a single write-up where authors, known to be knowledgeable, have agreed with Dr. Rizvi's findings and surmises, though there pervaded a general feeling that there should be further research and investigation, and arrangements for joint survey and evaluationand all these will have to be facilitated or organised by the government of India (GoI) prior to the commencement of the execution of the project. Here, the GoI is miserably failing.
Our government is also not being able to pursue this vigorously and successfully. Rather, people like Dr. Rizvi and his colleagues in the government seem to be advocating the case of the dam and supporting the points of view of the Indian central government rather than boldly upholding the interests of Bangladesh. The widely-known statements of the Water Resources Minister Mr. Ramesh Chandra and his state minister exemplify that.
At the outset, Dr. Rizvi stated that "knowledgeable experts have been pushed aside by those who are not so well-informed but have strong views and opinions." Who are the "knowledgeable experts" and who are "not so well-informed?" It appears that whoever points out the interests of Bangladesh, whoever cites international law and terms of bi-lateral agreement, whoever, on the basis of available facts and figures, reveals the destructive nature of the Tipaimukh Project earns disfavour from people in the government like Dr. Rizvi. Perhaps they are the experts whom a former Indian High Commissioner Mr. Pinaki Chakravorty had the audacity of calling "so-called."
This is an unacceptable situation for Bangladesh. I fail to understand why Tipaimukh issue is not discussed in the Joint Rivers Commission or in a specially set-up committee of experts with authority to hold survey and investigation. If the outcome of such efforts is in favour of a dam, then only, with the consent of co-riparian countries, such dam should be constructed. Otherwise it would be, in all fairness, treated as definitely not a friendly gesture.
A member of the Bangladesh Environment Network (BEN), Albelee A. Haque, in a well-researched article with purely scientific approach (the DS December 26) wrote: "Tipaimukh dam is a direct threat to both Indian and Bangladeshi population and eco-system of the entire Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin" and took pains to scientifically explain the basis of the finding. The author says in the article: "Water vapour is considered a greenhouse gas. Mega dams/barrages can alter the river dynamics and natural balance of evapo-transpiration and cloud cover by wasting huge amount of water through evaporation loss." This point has to be borne in mind.
Dr. Rizvi has surmised that the flow of water through Surma and Kashiyara is "unlikely to be affected as there will be no withdrawal or diversion of water in the project." But what about the other scientific reason? Besides, though in the dam project no diversion is indicated in the agreement signed by Manipur government and the National Power Commission, how about withdrawal of water by an Agreement with the government of Assam (down-stream) for the Cachar agriculture or irrigation project? Dr. Akbar Ali Khan and Prof. Asif Nazrul have also pointed that out.
As indicated in the "Hydrological Impact Study of Tipaimukh Dam Project on Bangladesh," the Institute of Water Modelling of Bangladesh, while elaborately bringing out the bad effects of the dam, has mentioned that as a justification for the dam. The Central Water Commission of India and North Eastern Electric Power Corporation have said that facilitating flow of water for the Cachar irrigation project can be ensured by creating diversionary structures 100 kilometers upstream from Bangladesh border at Amalsid. In the JRC, the government of India did not give a clear negative response to the query of Bangladesh. So it is clear that the conclusions already drawn by Dr. Rizvi or his colleagues in the government are not based on scientific reasons, facts or reality.
Dr. Rizvi has mentioned that "Assam and Nagaland, like Bangladesh, are also lower riparian ... and the governments of those two states have not objected to the project and have actually welcomed it." To the best of my knowledge, Nagaland is upstream of Tipaimukh, which is located in Churachandpur of Manipur at the juncture of the Taivai, flowing in from Mizoran. For a distance upstream, the Barak is on the border of Nagaland and Manipur, but there is no reason why Nagaland could be equated with Bangladesh as a lower-riparian. It seems to me that this is an effort to create a smoke-screen.
In Assam, only the Cachar district (which is Bangla speaking) is lower-riparian, and not the Ahomia speaking Assam or Brahmaputra valley. But the people of Assam and Manipur, many socio-economic organisations, political parties (non-Congress), peasant and workers' societies, students, environmentalist and experts have lodged strong project against the proposed dam. Participants in different seminars have spoken against it. The people of Manipur even demolished the foundation-stone twice. Now it is under army protection.
The Indo-Banlga Moitree Sangathan, along with others, has launched a movement against it. Only about a weak ago, a big delegation from the organsiation visited Sylhet and Dhaka and held rallies and press conferences against it. A delegation comprising leaders from Manipur also had earlier visited Dhaka and Sylhet with the same purpose. So, it is not a fact that the proposed dam is a welcome idea in the affected areas of India. They are vehemently against it, as are the people of Bangladesh, and on very justifiable grounds.
The way Dr. Rizvi has brushed aside concerns about salinity and a possible disaster arising out of an earthquake in a most earthquake prone area has been totally unscientific. He just relied on Indian expertise. Even with the very bad record of Indian violation of terms of agreements and international law and conventions, he and his cohorts ask us to rely on the apparently hollow assurance of Dr. Manmohan Singh!
To the government of India and to Dr. Rizvi and his colleagues in our government, we would like to say that Tipai, Teesta and Farakka are a life and death question for Bangladesh. Please organise a joint survey, J.R.C deliberation and open discussion by national and international experts of both the countries before the construction work commences. And then advise us.
The writer is a former Chairman, Privatisation Commission
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=216046
__._,_.___
