Today’s post is going to be just few good photos …
Here is a wonderful banyan tree with a massive canopy. This is found at a place called Shukrataal in Uttar Pradesh.
So after Shukrataal, I go straight to Ratnagiri in Maharashtra. Such a cute yawn, I just could not resist capturing it.
Again I go north, to be precise, to the north-east. This is a beautiful scene from the banks of Noahdihing river in Lohit district of Arunachal Pradesh.
That brings me to central India. This is a wonderful place, Narmada river cutting across mighty volcanic rock formations to showcase a veritable design, an absolute delight to our eyes. Unfortunately this place is submerged under waters of the Omkareshar dam downstream.
And the last one for today. A gem from the hypnotic Himalayas – the Bhagirathi I II & III peaks, who form the headwaters for the Gomukh glacier and then the holy Ganges.
If rivers are considered as living beings, we must recognise that in India today, they are an endangered species.
In his book, Animal Revolution (1975), Peter Singer popularised a term called ‘speciesists.’ According to him, “Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favouring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case.”
The recent decision of the Uttarakhand High Court (Mohd Salim vs State of Uttarakhand) in declaring the river Ganga and Yamuna as living entity/legal person/juristic person, raises important questions similar to speciesists. It is important to point out that the HC has not recognised ‘rivers’ per se as living being/legal person. It has recognised only rivers Ganga and Yamuna and its tributaries as living entity/legal person.
This recognition is largely in view of the fact Ganga and Yamuna are regarded as sacred by Hindus and have a special place in the cultural ethos of the country. Though the HC has recognised that the two rivers provide sustenance to communities from the mountain to the sea, the main reason for conferring special status is the sacredness attached to the rivers.
Even at the national level, the Ministry of Water Resources has been renamed as the Ministry of Water Resources, Ganga Rejuvenation and River Development. The priority of the Central government is clear: water is a resource to be utilised, rivers have to be ‘developed’ (that is tapped and harnessed), while the river Ganga is the only river that needs to be rejuvenated. The Ganga has clearly been conferred a special status both by the courts and the government.
Notwithstanding the fact that the decision places Ganga and Yamuna on a higher legal pedestal than other rivers, the most significant aspect of the HC decision is that it does provide for a new perspective from which way decision/policy/law-makers should view rivers. It has held that Ganga and Yamuna are “breathing, living and sustaining the communities from mountains to sea.”
However simplistic this statement may seem, the fact is that the present legal and policy framework does not consider the river as either a ‘breathing’ or ‘living entity.’ On the contrary, it is viewed as ‘natural resource’ whose ‘potential’ has to be realised. It requires to be ‘tapped,’ ‘tamed,’ ‘harnessed,’ ‘dammed,’ ‘dredged’ or ‘linked’ in order to realise its full ‘potential.’
A river which is not subjected to any of the above processes and allowed to flow into the sea/ocean is viewed as a national waste. The Supreme Court’s controversial decision in the Narmada Bachao Andolan, Tehri and the River Linking cases is a reflection of the mindset which emphasises on the need to tap this potential of rivers to attain sustainable development. In a way, the HC decision marks a fundamental departure from the ecologically myopic views held by the courts till date.
Having said that, the court decision does have its shortcomings. Having conferred the unique status, it has invoked the principle of persons in loco parentis (that is, in place of parents) and has appointed the chief secretary and advocate general of the state and director, Namami Gange as the ‘human face to protect, conserve and preserve Rivers Ganga and Yamuna and their tributaries.’ According to the court, “These officers are bound to uphold the status of Rivers Ganges and Yamuna and also to promote the health and well being of these rivers.”
Conflict of interest
The problem is that, this is bound to lead to conflict of interest. The chief secretary is the secretary to the Cabinet whereas the AG is the highest law officer of the state government. Though Article 165 of the Constitution may give an impression that the AG is answerable only to the governor, in reality, he/she is a political appointee and defends the action of the state government before the courts.
Neither of them is an independent authority like the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or the Chief Election Commissioner. In such a situation, it is difficult to assume that either of them will be able to discharge their role as independent officers or representatives of rivers.
No judgement is perfect. A judgement is not a legislation and every word in a judgement need not be interpreted like letters of law. However, what is significant is that the HC judgement can be an important starting point for those fighting for the right of the rivers to flow uninterrupted.
If rivers are considered as living beings, we must recognise that in India today, rivers that are living and breathing, are an endangered species. They require special status and proactive conservation efforts. A ‘speciesist approach,’ however discriminatory, for all of the last free flowing rivers, and not just the Ganga and Yamuna, may be the last hope to save our rivers.
(The writer is an environmental lawyer and Managing Trustee of International Rivers, South Asia)
The above write up was first published in Deccan Herald on April 4, 2017 and can be read here
Allowing the river to be a legal entity means according it the right to live
“While exercising the parens patrie jurisdiction, the Rivers Ganga and Yamuna, all their tributaries, streams, every natural water flowing with flow continuously or intermittently of these rivers, are declared as juristic/ legal persons/ living entities having the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person in order to preserve and conserve river Ganga and Yamuna.”
These were the words used by justices Aloke Singh and Rajiv Sharma of the Uttarakhand High Court on March 20, 2017 while declaring Ganga and Yamuna, two of the most sacred rivers in India, living entities.
On expected lines, the news break brought loud cheer from environmentalists and conservationists, not to mention even ordinary citizens who have deep aastha for Maa Ganga.
The Ganga is not only significant in view of the pride of place it occupies for its spiritual or cultural standing, but more so because it feeds almost 40 per cent of the country’s population.
From the lofty Himalayas to the Gangasagar, the Ganga basin – comprising the main river and its numerous tributaries – irrigates a large portion of the Indian subcontinent.
The slight change in water availability and the quality of Ganga, truly our national river, has a direct bearing on the economy of this region.
But, post-euphoria, reading the judgment by Uttarakhand High Court makes you wonder if the celebrations came a tad too soon.
Declaring the rivers, its tributaries and streams – essentially the entire basin – legal entities, the justices said: “The Director NAMAMI Gange, the chief secretary of the state of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of the State of Uttarakhand are hereby declared persons in loco parentis as human face to protect, conserve and preserve Rivers Ganga and Yamuna and their tributaries. These Officers are bound to uphold the status of Rivers Ganges and Yamuna and also to promote the health and well-being of these rivers.”
Therein lies the catch.
The judgment is a major step in river conservation efforts, but it has a huge implication vis-à-vis the territorial jurisdiction of the high court.
In simple terms, it applies only to the state of Uttarakhand.
“(But) The decision can have persuasive value for litigants from other states to get similar orders for respective states,” said Ritwick Dutta, environmental lawyer.
The Centre, state governments, as also litigants from other states, can extend the judgment to their stretch of the rivers.
It is too early to know if the Uttarakhand government or the Centre will approach the Supreme Court against the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision.
But water being a state subject, the decision to accord similar status to the stretches in their territory will rest entirely with the states.
“Government of India – or for that matter, even the government of Uttarakhand – should not technically approach the Supreme Court. Else, all the talk of cleaning the Ganga river, the Namami Gange etc will be futile,” Dutta said.
Drains of Ganga and Yamuna
This was originally a case of removal of encroachment from the river’s floodplains – a common phenomenon in the hills of Uttarakhand, which had resulted in heavy loss of life and property in the 2013 disaster following the cloudburst.
The court had insisted on encroachment removal and the authorities paid no heed.
Not only this set of encroachments, but the rivers Ganga and Yamuna have also seen a host of problems: dumping of debris, dumping of treated/untreated sewage, encroaching the flood plains, building dams that obstruct the flow, diverting the flow of rivers for hydropower projects and haphazard planning – rather the lack of planning and illegal sand mining.
In fact, barring a few pristine stretches, the rivers had stopped being rivers – not qualifying on two simple, universal aspects that make any living river: aviral (continuous) and nirmal (unpolluted).
“People along the river Ganga are already going away from the river. The river no longer provides irrigation, the fish catch is declining, it brings increased floods each year, thus complain those staying along the river. The same people who revered it as Maa Ganga, are now saying, ‘We don’t feel this is our river’,” Siddharth Agarwal of Veditum, who has been walking upstream along the Ganga from Gangasagar, told me over the phone.
Starting last year, Agarwal has already walked 2,300km and is now traversing the snaking route near Uttarkashi, about 100-plus kilometres before Gangotri and Gomukh, the origins of the holy Ganges. “They don’t have any hope from the river.”
The Uttarakhand High Court echoed what Agarwal experienced while interacting with a multitude of people along the Ganga’s banks as part of his project “Moving Upstream”.
“The extraordinary situation has arisen since Rivers Ganga and Yamuna are losing their very existence. The situation requires extraordinary measures to be taken to preserve and conserve Rivers Ganga and Yamuna,” the court said.
Outlook needs to change
In 2013, the Kedarnath disaster had jolted everybody out of wits. Government and the people took to some remedial measures.
Committees were set up, declarations made and prayers held in reverence of the Maa Ganga. But, obviously, it was not enough.
Those who suffered and witnessed the destruction first hand described it akin to mythological “pralay (excessive flooding)” .
Be it the mythological pralay or the disaster that wreaked havoc, the message was loud and clear: mere obeisance is not enough, mere rituals of aartis and pujas are not enough, mere slogans of Namami Gange are not enough.
In 2014, the new dispensation at the Centre took over and one of the major decisions in the initial days was to declare the integrated Ganga conservation mission called “Namami Gange” to arrest the pollution of Ganga river and revive it.
The Union Cabinet approved an action plan to spend Rs 20,000 crore till 2019-2020 as part of the 100 per cent central sector scheme.
This was over and above the humongous budget spent as part of the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG), with no result.
But the moot question is: Have we adopted the right approach?
Have we achieved the balance between environment and development or have we let development (read human greed) to rob the river – overpowered the need of the river to live?
Allowing the river to be a legal entity means according it the right to live.
Are we prepared to pull down the already-built dams that obstruct the aviral (continuous) flow?
While the intention of the Uttarakhand High Court is laudable, what is alarming is it indirectly relieved the ministry of water resources, the nodal front, of any task (perhaps again playing the jurisdictional card) to ensure the protection of the river.
“The presence of the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga rejuvenation is dispensed with,” the court said after tasking the “parent-ship” of rivers Ganga and Yamuna to the director, Namami Gange, the chief secretary of Uttarakhand and the advocate general of Uttarakhand.
In fact, it is the ministry of water resources, and in turn, the government of India, that should be the real parent of the rivers Ganga and Yamuna in the light of the new status.
Uma Bharti, the Union minister for water resources, had launched a “Save Ganga” campaign prior to her appointment in 2014.
“Mujhe Ganga ne bulaya hai (Ganga has called me),” Prime Minister Narendra Modi had famously declared soon after his victory from Varanasi in the 2014 general elections.
With such illustrious prodigies at the helm of affairs, Maa Ganga should be confident that Modi (by extension, the government of India) and Bharti (the ministry of water resources) would definitely extend the “Living Entity” status to the entire length of river Ganga? Will they?
(This story was first published by Daily O and it can be read here
The pact must bring riparian nations China and Afghanistan on board amid changing climatic conditions.
Ten days after the dastardly terrorist attack at Uri in Jammu and Kashmir, much water has flown down the Indus. The Indus Water Treaty 1960 (IWT) that governs the water-sharing arrangement between India and Pakistan has suddenly hogged all the limelight with scores of people demanding its abrogation to choke Pakistan thirsty.
Under this treaty, India and Pakistan share the waters – Pakistan uses almost 80 per cent of the water from the basin – of six rivers that flow through India towards Pakistan. Of these, India has complete rights over Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, while Pakistan uses Chenab, Jhelum and Indus.
On Monday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was briefed about the options India can exercise vis-a-vis the IWT following which it was declared that India will be dramatically reconfiguring the usage of its share of the waters in an as-yet unexplored manner.
Apart from steps to increase/expedite its water storage infrastructure and carrying out “non-consumptive” use for its as-yet grossly under-utilised, under-exploited share as per the treaty, an inter-ministerial group will look into India’s rights on its share.
Without going into the technical details, grand as it may sound, and legally valid too, fact remains that the provisions for utilisation of our own water share are likely to take many years to materialise.The inter-ministerial group can do a better and faster job.
Time for a relook
To start with, the 1960 vintage treaty falls short on several counts. Shakil A Romshoo, professor and head of the department of Earth Sciences at Kashmir University,advocates a relook at the Indus Water Treaty from the climate change perspective and maintaining ecological flow – points which are not part of the original agreement. The treaty talks of distribution of water only between India and Pakistan, but nothing about maintaining environmental flows.
India happens to be the middle riparian state for the transboundary Indus river system. The Indus drainage basin stretches over 1.1 million sqkm area across Afghanistan (9 per cent), China (8 per cent), India (38 per cent) and Pakistan (46 per cent).
While India and Pakistan remain the largest stakeholders due to the size and volume of the waters and vis-à-vis their usage, Afghanistan (a small area due to Kabul river) and China – as Indus and Sutlej originate in Tibet – too are part of the basin. The river system in the basin includes: Ravi, Beas, Sutlej, Swat, Chitral, Gilgit, Hunza, Shigar, Shyok, Indus, Shingo, Astor, Jhelum, Chenab and Kabul.
The Indus Basin Knowledge Platform correctly unfolds the Indus basin scenario,: “The Indus Basin epitomises a grand challenge due to its high poverty rates, high groundwater extraction, increased environmental degradation and risk of floods and droughts due to climate change.”
Stating the direct impact of climate change on water, the intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has already warned in its report that changes in precipitation in a warming world will not be uniform. The intensified hydrological cycles will see fewer rainy days, but more intense rainfall on those days.
This directly leads to floods, something similar to what Kashmir Valley witnessed in September 2014. Since 2010, Pakistan has had a number of alarming floods causing huge loss of life and damage to agriculture land/property.
Beyond the India-Pakistan binary
With such extreme climatic events predicted to occur in greater frequency, it makes more sense to take a holistic look at the entire basin. Going beyond the geo-political strategic conditions, it becomes imperative to look at the whole basin through changing climatic exigencies, which will mean the involvement of Afghanistan and China.
Glaciers in the Kashmir Himalayas and Karakoram ranges contribute to the majority of water flow in the basin while the contribution from China (Tibet) and Afghanistan is far less. But involving China becomes important also because of the gaping hole – a dark zone when it comes to knowledge about geographical and climatic conditions in the Tibet Autonomous Region from where both Indus and Sutlej originate, even though not many are aware about the exact developments taking place in the region.
China has managed to keep a lot of secrets there. In fact, there is lack of transparent mechanism on data sharing. Himanshu Thakkar of South Asia Network for Dams, River and People explains: “In June 2000, Siang area in Arunachal Pradesh experienced exponential rise in water level. Similarly, in August 2000, Sutlej river area in Himachal Pradesh experienced exponential rise in water level. In both cases, there was no record of heavy rainfall. So where did that water come from? China totally declined any hand in it.”
He points us to a medium-scale dam on Indus, which China built without informing the downstream users, near Demchok in Ladakh. As per a report in the April 2010 issue of Journal of Defence Studies, the dam was located by Alice Alibinia, a British journalist and author of Empires of the Indus , while tracking the source of the Indus in Tibet.
China has huge economic interests in the region due to the Northern Route of the proposed China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) falling in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir.
So, on one hand, the actual portion of Indus (both the river and the basin) is very less in Tibet, on the other, China indirectly gets a say in the much larger area – including the Ladakh ranges of Aksai Chin occupied by China and the PoK portion of Karakoram.
Remember, the Indus – starting in Tibet – after passing through Ladakh travels through Gilgit and Baltistan in PoK, and then flows through the Pakistani plains before finally draining into the sea near Thattha in Pakistan. China also conducts a lot of military activity in the Ngari area of the Tibet Autonomous Region, where it has also been promoting large-scale tourism in the Kailash Mansarovar region, an area that lies directly northeast of Himachal Pradesh and where Sutlej too originates.
Given the geo-political situation in the region, bringing China and Afghanistan on board sounds a far-fetched idea for many. The reasons are obvious. An expert at a recent dialogue on the Indus basin described the four countries of the river system as a “Matrix of Paired Opposites”. Hostile: Afghanistan-Pakistan, India-Pakistan; Friendly: China-Pakistan, India-Afghanistan; Neutral: Afghanistan-China. Of these, India and China are convergent on global issues, but divergent on regional issues.
It may indeed seem a far-fetched idea at this juncture – and China has not shown any interest in any kind of data sharing, and refused as yet any bilateral treaty with India vis-à-vis the rivers shared by the two countries. But considering the fast-changing climatic conditions, a collective data set (including data about precipitation – snowfall/rainfall, melting of snow, soil erosion, dams and storages on rivers and other spatial and temporal weather aspects) for the much-needed water balance in the region is missing. Work is in progress at many levels, but the efforts are isolated and scattered.
The Indus Water Treaty does not have an exit clause, but there are provisions for making changes that are mutually agreeable. While Pakistan may not agree to change the provisions as it gains a massive 80 per cent share of the water as per the treaty, Indus is the country’s lifeline – it will have to sooner or later take into consideration the changing climatic conditions and hence a need for a comprehensive arrangement.
Perhaps, India – as a middle riparian country – can act as a bridge between the upper and lower riparian countries.
This story was first published by DailyO portal of the India Today group on September 28, 2016. It can be read here
Not many will recognize that this Delhi’s own Yamuna. Yes, this clean. The photo is taken at a place called Jagatpur, 2 kms upstream of Wazirabad. I dream of a clean Yamuna downstream of Wazirabad too.
As many as 28 drains dump sewage in the Yamuna downstream of Wazirabad. The Delhi Jal Board has drawn up yet another plan to salvage the situation. Here is what the Hindustan Times’ graphic stated what the DJB plans to do.
Will it help rectify the situation? Wait and watch!!!