Dear All/Dear Roy


 
Declaring floods a national problem is more of a political nature. In the recent memory, the floods caused by Andhra Pradesh Cyclone was declared as a national calamity. It suited both, Devegowda at the centre and Chandra Babu Naidu in Hyderabad, in 1996, to cash on the people’s miseries. Naidu was in a position to squeeze the centre, which had no other option than to oblige him. With the similar kind of losses and problems faced by the people, the Bihar floods of 1987 passed of without causing any ripples anywhere because (1) there was same party rule in the state and at the centre, (2) the centre under Rajiv Gandhi was too strong to bother about the state and Vindhyeshwari Dubey, then Chief Minister of Bihar, like all congressmen was to weak to raise any demand from the centre. It will also be of interest to remind ourselves that, following the floods of 1988, when Rajiv Gandhi visited Assam, Prafulla Mohanta had defied protocol and did not go to receive him at the airport, out of shear frustration that Assam got a raw deal at the hand of the center. It will of interest to observe the curious silence of Lalu Prasad Yadav this year when the state is faced with one of the worst floods of the living memory. There are no rallies this year against center’s apathy in the state although it got nuts from the center in view of the losses it suffered. The simple reason is that the same combination rules Delhi and Patna.

My knowledge about Assam may be limited but I am lucky to have seen most of Assam. I would agree with Gen. Sudhir that what all we can remove when Assam would be drowning under floodwaters is just a fraction of the total flow of the river. The Riverlinking scheme states clearly the water will be transferred only after the local needs are met. Now, the local needs, as far as farmers are concerned, arise only after the rainy season. For this, we need canals and if the canals are taken off from the link canal and expected to meet the local needs in the 80 to 90 kilometers wide and 800 kilometers long plain Brahmaputra Valley in Assam, their construction will have to be done in filling (at least partly over-ground). This construction will be done only to appease the farmers because the link canals are not expected to transfer water during the lean season. This futile exercise would cause obstruction to the flow of water during the rainy season and will surely lead to worsening of waterlogging conditions. These canals would breach during floods and the people would perform ‘public cuts’ as they do it with the embankments, presently. 

Regarding taking over of the scheme by the center, I must say that once a demand was made in the Loksabha (1982 ?) over the construction of the Western Kosi Canal, in Bihar, by some Central Authority and a suggestion was made that Central Water Commission does the job. That time appropriation of water was not the issue but inordinate delay in the construction of the canal by the state authorities was the issue. The Government’s reply was the same that constitution would have to be amended. The center, it appears, did not want to burn its fingers.

The task force appointed by Man Mohan Singh will suffer the same fate as the one appointed under the Chairmanship of  Naresh Chandra in 1987. Its report is gathering dust somewhere in Central Water Commission. I was also of the opinion that such a task force will be of help but when one looks into the fate of various commissions and task forces, the opinion changes. National Commission of Floods had made 207 recommendations of which 25 were accepted by the Government. I am not sure, how many of these were implemented. Presumably, none.  Constitution of committees without ever intending to ground its findings is a futile exercise. It is better to ask what has already been done and to ensure its implementation, as a first step.

As far as floods are concerned, it will be wise to face them locally. This is in tune with our tradition. Let the water come and go as fast as possible. Withdraw all the interventions that have converted floods into a deluge. Evaluate all the interventions and if the investment in the flood control sector is doing more harm than good, it should be stopped forthwith. Right to information and transparency are the keywords for success in future. The price tag to any technical intervention should be debated and be made known to the concerned people.

Traditional methods of dealing with floods must be studied very carefully and urgently. These methods to cope with floods should be further polished in the backdrop of modern scientific knowledge. Northeast has a wealth of information on such techniques. Unfortunately, western influence has inculcated a sense of inferiority complex in the minds of the intelligentsia and they have ceased to appreciate the local wisdom. Our housings, our cropping pattern, our food, our sanitation during floods, although there is vast scope of improvement, has been unique. The way we have made use of boats and bamboo is exemplary. We cannot produce power traditionally but irrigation and floods, we know how to handle. Only thing is, our technical personnel will have to go and learn from the elderly people who are fading away very fast. People’s experience and computation skills of the engineers can improve the flood situation to a great extent. Will that ever happen? Will those treating floods in the Ganga and Brahmaputra plains a disaster ever realize that it is a way of life for us. We have lived with our rivers on equal terms. Embanking made the rivers disproportionately powerful and destructive and the people living in the plains were dwarfed before the might of the rivers. The proposed dams will further aggravate the situation.

If dams, an essential feature of the riverlinking program, were the solution, why the elections in Hoshangabad and Bhopal had to be postponed in 1999? There were many dams in the Narmada basin. Why coastal Orissa was flooded in 2001 despite the Hirakud Dam? Why didn’t the DVC dams prevent floods in West Bengal in 2002? There are many questions that need be answered. The problem cannot be hushed up by simply saying that the damages would have been much more if the structures had not existed.

Lastly, there is a difference between the weevil and a fish. The water cannot and should not be shared between them equally, to the detriment of both. Their environment,
requirements / availability and consumption patterns are entirely different.


Dinesh Mishra.
Jamshedpur
19th August 2004