Our Water Resources
Asom is facing a genuine problem in respect of the collaboration and cooperation needed for tackling the flood problem, managing water resources equitably and taking advantage of loans available from international financial institutions for more efficient management of our water resources. Unfortunately, intransigence is much in evidence, and the vital collaborative spirit that is imperative for the entire northeastern region is woefully lacking. And that is why it has become necessary to state the obvious. All over the world, rivers wend their way across political and international boundaries, and there is little that man can do about this beyond drafting and signing agreements to share water resources equitably. The more evolved the human societies concerned, the less acrimonious and problematic the task becomes. Even so, the Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka — two of our advanced States — should be a clear indication of how human greed and possessiveness affects even civilized societies. In the Northeast, the dispute over the water resources of the same river and its tributaries as also the floods that inundate these rivers during the rainy season seem to have made the inter-State relationships over water and management of water resources more acrimonious because of the ‘big brother' syndrome that affects some of the States of the region. And yet, the creation of the North East Water Resources Authority (NEWRA) is deemed vital for the region as only such an authority can arrive at decisions of water resources management that will be acceptable to all the States of the region and that will reflect their aspirations. The formation of such an authority is being held up mainly due to the reluctance of Arunachal Pradesh to collaborate in this endeavour. This is not the first time that Arunchal Pradesh is doing this. The kind of major hydro-electric power project that could have changed the face of not only the Northeast but the entire country with about 40,000 MW of clean hydel power, did not materialize (when it should have) due to the unwillingness of Arunachal Pradesh to collaborate. At that time the main reason for not cooperating was that large areas of Arunachal Pradesh would be submerged under water with large hydroelectric projects. This was a rather strange argument for a State that had a density of population of just 10 per square kilometre at that point of time, and where the task of rehabilitating displaced persons would not have been a problem at all. Today, Itanagar's disinclination to be part of such a vital collaborative undertaking seems to be different. It stems from the ‘big brother' syndrome. Arunachal Pradesh is unhappy that all Central planning for the Northeast should be Asom-centric. This is not quite true, but even if it were true, there is nothing to be surprised at. After all, the population of Asom is greater than the population of all the other States of the region taken together. Besides, access to almost all the other States of the Northeast is through Asom.
In any case, Asom Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi has done well to request Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to find out from Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Dorjee Khandu what his stand on NEWRA is, and if he continues to oppose the setting up of this authority, the other States of the Northeast should go ahead and constitute NEWRA even without the participation of Arunachal Pradesh. And while he discusses the water resources management problems of the region (which includes the management of floods), it is only appropriate that he should also take up the issue of the Centre's discriminatory treatment of Asom in respect of Central assistance vis-à-vis Bihar. It is highly unfair that Bihar should get Central assistance of Rs 1,000 crore for the floods (while appeals are being made to MPs to donate for flood relief in Bihar) whereas Asom is allocated only about Rs 210 crore. There is Lalu Prasad Yadav to look after the needs of Bihar. The Prime Minister, who is a Rajya Sabha MP from Asom, should be looking after the genuine needs of the State at a time of floods of unprecedented ferocity.
source: sentinel assam |
The Meaning of NSG Waiver
K Subrahmanyam
India had always strongly supported the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In 1965, India with Ireland and other nations sponsored Resolution 2025 which laid down the balance of obligations between the five nuclear weapon powers and the rest of the international community. The nuclear weapon powers were to enter into negotiations in good faith to stop the arms race and reduce their nuclear arsenals. The non-nuclear powers were to undertake not to proliferate nuclear weapons. However, as the three nuclear weapon powers started their negotiations and India participated in them, it was obvious that the three powers — US, USSR and UK — were not abiding by the obligations of Resolution 2025. While they piled the obligations on the non-nuclear nations, they kept their own options open for an arms race. Under those circumstances India refused to join the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Further China, though a weapon state under the NPT, refused to join the treaty at that stage. A Maoist China declared in those days that all peace-loving nations had a right to have nuclear weapons. Given the developing close relations among China, US and Pakistan and the intimidatory USS Enterprise mission sent by US during the last days of the Bangladesh war, India decided to develop its nuclear explosive capability. The result was the Pokhran nuclear test of 1974. The nuclear weapon nations and their allies reacted swiftly against the Indian nuclear test. US, USSR, UK, France, Germany, Canada and Japan formed the London Suppliers’ Group to ban export of all nuclear technology, equipment and materials related to the plutonium route to nuclear capability. A list was prepared, called the Zangger list, which itemized all things to be banned. It did not include at that time uranium enrichment technology since it was felt that it was too sophisticated for developing countries. This omission was made use of by Pakistani scientist AQ Khan and he obtained all his technology, materials and equipment from Western European countries. The bomb making technology, design, the trigger material and basic stock of enriched uranium he was able to obtain from China, which was then not a member of the NPT. T hough India was aware of China-Pakistan
proliferation axis and US looking away from
Pakistani proliferation because of its reliance on Pakistan for its support to the mujahideen in the Afghan war, India was reluctant to initiate weaponization in most of eighties. Within this time there was another proliferation involving South Africa, Germany and Israel which led to the South African white minority regime acquiring nuclear weapons. It was after his plea for global nuclear disarmament was totally ignored by the international community in the UN Special Session on Disarmament, Rajiv Gandhi decided to weaponize in March 1989. Pakistan had completed its weapon assembly in 1987. In 1992, both France and China joined the NPT to have an effective say in the NPT review conference of 1995. The conference, by extending the treaty indefinitely and unconditionally, legitimized the nuclear weapons in the hands of five nuclear weapon powers. Having secured the legitimization of the nuclear weapons, the five nuclear weapon powers promoted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to prevent any new nation becoming nuclear.
Meanwhile, the South African white minority regime gave up its nuclear arsenal since the whites did not want the black majority to have nuclear weapons. Then Indian prime minister PV Narasimha Rao at that stage attempted to conduct a nuclear test but was thwarted as the US satellites discovered the preparations. India refused to sign the CTBT and declared that nuclear testing involved its national security. Pakistan followed suit. By the 90s, the original London Suppliers’ Group swelled to above 40 and became the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). But its vigilance and technology denial could not stop Pakistani or Chinese proliferation. Again the US adopted a permissive attitude towards Chinese proliferation to Pakistan, mostly because the US administration did not want to jeopardize growing trade relations with China. But the NSG ’s technology denial hampered India’s access to various dual use technologies. It came in the way of India growing even faster. India conducted its nuclear tests provoked by Pakistan’s Ghauri missile test. Pakistan followed suit. Both countries were immediately put under sanctions in 1998.
By 1999, the world had all countries other than Israel, India and Pakistan in the NPT. North Korea, a signatory of the NPT, withdrew from it and conducted a nuclear test, and is now negotiating its way back into the NPT. China was admitted into the NSG in 2004 because it is a weapon state of the NPT and has a large civil nuclear programme. It was considered better to have China as a stakeholder in the non-proliferation regime in spite of its past proliferation to Pakistan. In 2005, the US first took the initiative to help in India’s efforts to become a major power. This was because of India’s high growth rate, its nuclear and missile capabilities, its trillion dollar economy, its IT prowess and its offsource contributions to global economy. There was world wide recognition of India as one of the six global balancers of power.
T hough India was an emergent power, it was not
seen as a threatening power by the international
system. Not only the US, but France, Russia and the UK came to the conclusion that India should be incorporated in the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, especially in view of the fact that in spite of technology denial by the NSG countries, India on its own had developed into a country with advanced nuclear technology, with reactors of its own design, fast breeder reactors and is attempting to develop uranium-233 from thorium. India had already been admitted into the international Thermonuclear Energy Research Project. India has very large energy demand and is planning to use nuclear energy to meet part of that demand. Above all, the major powers, the sponsors of the NPT and the founders of the NSG came to appreciate India’s impeccable record in respect of nonproliferation; the Indian policy of no-first-use; and India’s restrained pace in building up its arsenal. Its voluntary moratorium on testing also attracted favourable attention of the major powers. That is why one saw the entire G-8 countries coming out in favour of India getting the NSG waiver and access to international high technology. In today’s balance of power world, India’s fast growth is welcomed by the US, EU, Russia and Japan as a balancer to China’s growth and dominance in Asia. Perhaps that was one of the reasons China was not quite happy about India getting the waiver. On the other hand there is a view that the fast growth of countries like India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea and Indonesia will diminish the share of US GDP in global GDP and reduce its dominance. By giving waiver to India and making India a part of the international non-proliferation regime, the regime now covers the whole world barring Israel and Pakistan. Israel has no interest in civil nuclear commerce. Pakistan unfortunately has a record as a proliferator and even now is refusing to allow access for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to AQ Khan , the notorious proliferator. Pakistan may have to prove its non-proliferation credentials over a period of time before it can become eligible for NSG waiver.
It was very befitting that the sponsors of the NPT and the founders of the NSG moved for waiver for India. It is not a case of India becoming a major power as a result of this development. This development was an acknowledgement of India having arrived as a power. Today, India is the sole nuclear weapon power that is not a signatory to the NPT and yet given a waiver by the NSG. An international regime has been modified to accommodate India.
(The writer is a noted strategic affairs analyst) source: sentinel assam
Don’t Hold the River between Embankments
Bharat Jhunjhunwala
The government has built embankments along the sides of rivers to save people from trouble. Embankments provide relief from floods in normal years. Flood water is contained between the embankments and areas outside remain unaffected. But devastation is much greater in years of floods. Water rises suddenly as the river breaches the embankments and the huge amount of water is spilled out like a torrent. People find it difficult to reach safe places and many die as has happened in Bihar recently. Huge spills carry much coarse sand that covers the productive topsoil and lays them waste.
Furthermore, embankments create an artificial obstruction in the drainage system of the river basin. As a result, flood water takes a long time to recede. This author has had occasion to visit Gorakhpur after the 1998 floods. The waters remained for about 15 days even though rains had stopped because it simply could not get out of the area. Another disadvantage is that silt is arrested between the embankments and prevented from flowing to the sea. The entire Ganges basin from Haridwar to Ganga Sagar is made from such silt. Trapping of silt between embankments deprives our coasts of silt-renourishment and hastens their erosion. Large areas of our coastal land are likely to be engulfed as the sea level rises due to global warming. Flow of silt could help raise the level of land of Bengal and reduce this danger. The benefits obtained by people from the embankments have been undone by these problems. According to one report, Bihar had 160 km embankments in 1954 and 25 lakh hectare land was flood-affected. Since then more than 3,000 km new embankments have been made but the area that is flood-affected, instead of decreasing, has increased to 69 lakh hectares. More embankments means more floods.
This is the result of planners not undertaking true Cost-Benefit Analysis. The National Relief and Rehabilitation Policy of 2007 recognizes the need to undertake such analysis in a transparent manner and presenting before the people. Unfortunately, this is not done. The officials overestimate benefits while hiding many costs. It is undisputed that embankments provide relief to the people in normal years. But many costs are ignored.
First, it is assumed that the embankment will never breach. The cost to life and property in the event of breaching — as being seen presently — is ignored. It is like giving birth to a child under the assumption that she will never fall sick in her life! Second, these embankments deprive our coastal areas of sediment renourishment. Third, the loss of flood-recession agriculture is not accounted for. Fourth, the holding of floodwater for 15 days after the rains have receded, leads to the spread of many water-borne diseases. Fifth, the value of land lost in the structure of the embankment is not accounted. Sixth, embankments lead to less biodiversity. Seventh, there is an aesthetic value to free flow of rivers. Two dams on the Elhwa River in Washington State, USA were removed on this basis. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the US Government commissioned a study which found that people across the country had a value for free flow of the river. For example, a person living in Florida is unlikely to ever visit the Elhwa River. Yet she may feel happy if the river flows freely. These are called ‘‘non-use’’ values. Similarly, people of Kerala may have non-use value for the free flow of the Kosi. Economists use the concept of ‘‘willingness to pay’’ to assess this. People can be asked how much they are willing to pay for the removal of embankments in Bihar. This would be the gain to the country by removal of embankments. Dams on the Elhwa River were removed because the US Government found that people had a high level of non-use value for the free flow of Elhwa River. These non-use values were reckoned to be more that direct economic benefits from hydropower and urban water supply, and the dams were removed. A similar study should be undertaken for the embankments made in Bihar. My assessment is that a true study of costs and benefits of the embankments will most likely lead to their removal. Unfortunately, our leaders appear unwilling to make such an assessment. Mayawati has said that the Centre is not providing enough relief to fight the floods. This is the game that politicians play. First, large contracts are to be given in making the embankments. Then, when they breach, equally large commissions are to be made in delivery of relief. The bureaucracy loves such projects. BJP president Rajnath Singh has asked the Prime Minister to make a one-time exception and allow use of MPLAD funds for flood relief in Bihar. The CPI-ML has asked that a comprehensive programme for flood control should be made. Such arrogance towards nature does not deliver.
GF Hall, Chief Engineer of Bihar, had said as early as in 1937: ‘‘As my knowledge of flood conditions increased, I began to doubt the efficacy of embankments and gradually came to the conclusion that not only was flood prevention undesirable but that embankments are the primary cause of excessive flooding. North Bihar needs floods, not flood prevention.’’
It is time we thought of living with nature instead of trying to control it. |
No comments:
Post a Comment