Ganga Water Sharing

The dispute between India and Bangladesh (East Pakistan till 1971) over the sharing of the Ganga water arose when in 1960s the Indian government decided to construct a barrage at Farakka, close to Indo-Bangladesh border. The objective behind the construction of the Farakka Barrage was to increase the lean period flow of the Bhagirathi-Hooghly branch of Ganga to increase the water depth at the Kolkota port which was threatened by siltation. As irrigation withdrawals increased in Bangladesh, dispute arose between India and Bangladesh over the sharing of the lean season flow at Farakka. The inadequacy of water during the lean season to meet the assessed demands in the two countries is the root cause of the conflict.

The Bangladesh government feels that the reduction in flow caused damage to agriculture, industry and ecology in the basin in Bangladesh. The government of India feels that such misgivings are misplaced. Because of the inability of the concerned governments to come to any lasting agreement over the last few decades on sharing the river water, this problem has grown and now it is also viewed as a case of upstream-downstream dispute.

In the relationship between India and Bangladesh, the dispute over Ganga water was an important component for over two decades. In 1977, the two countries reached a five-year agreement on water sharing which was signed in November 1977. However, the basic issues remained un-solved and hence, the agreement was not renewed and lapsed in 1982. Later, a proposal was mooted by India to augment the flow of Ganga at Farakka by constructing a barrage across the Brahmaputra at Jogighopa in India and transfer water to Farakka through a canal. A proposal from Bangladesh was to construct a series of reservoirs on the tributaries of Ganga in Nepal. But this would have brought Nepal also in the picture. None of these proposals could be implemented.

According to the Bangladesh view of this dispute, there was a “unilateral diversion” of the waters of the Ganga by India at Farakka to the detriment of Bangladesh and the resulting reduction in flows had severe adverse effects on Bangladesh. It was also projected that this was a case of a large and more powerful country disregarding the interests of a small and weaker neighbour. This has been one topic on which there has been complete unanimity in Bangladesh. Sentiments grew to such an extent that India was projected as being responsible for all water related disasters, whether drought or floods and the Farakka project was supposed to be the cause behind all water related problems.

The perceptions on the Indian side were entirely different. Ganga River is closely intertwined with the religious and social life of the people. Also important are the legitimate needs of the Kolkota Port in the light of siltation and growth of future traffic.

After the liberation of Bangladesh, the general perception was that two countries should strive to establish stable and friendly relations. Thus, the position of Bangladesh was unbelievable to many Indians and the general feeling was that Bangladesh had taken an un-necessarily rigid and unreasonable stand on this issue.

It was felt that Bangladesh had greatly overstated its water needs and its claim was disproportionate to its fair share by any logic. Regarding diversion of water for the Kolkota port through the Farakka Barrage, the view was that Bangladesh had magnified the adverse effects due to reduced flows and it was unfair on their part to blame India for flood problem. A further complication was the feeling on the parts of the concerned State Governments in India that their interests had not been properly addressed by the Central Government during bilateral talks with Bangladesh. For several years after 1990, there was a virtual stalemate between the two governments on this issue.

Finally, an agreement was reached and a Treaty on the sharing of Ganga water between India and Bangladesh was signed on 12 December 1996. The Treaty is essentially regarding the sharing of lean-season flows, although there is an article which recognizes the need for cooperation in finding a solution to the long-term problem of augmentation. The sharing formula agreed in the Treaty is related to actual flows at various levels and not to 75% dependable flows as in past agreements. The basic formula is that of equal sharing of the lean-season flows by the two countries. This applies to a range of flows, with two modifications at the upper and lower extremes. At the upper end, there is a slight increase in India’s share to enable it to divert 1,132.66 cumec (40,000 cusec) (the full diversion capacity of the Farakka feeder canal) at a flow level of 2,123.74 cumec (75,000 cusec) instead of 2,265.33 cumec (80,000 cusec). Above 2,123.74 cumec (75,000 cusec), India’s share is held at 1,132.66 cumec and the balance goes to Bangladesh.

Some people view the Treaty as a political rather than a technical settlement. Although the issue now stands resolved, some people feel that it has not been resolved for ever. The Treaty is a 30-year Treaty (renewable further), with a provision for a review at the end of five years, or even at the end of two years, if either party wants it.

Home	Ganga Water Sharing	Go Back
The dispute between India and Bangladesh (East Pakistan till 1971) over the sharing of the Ganga water arose when in 1960s the Indian government decided to construct a barrage at Farakka, close to Indo-Bangladesh border. The objective behind the construction of the Farakka Barrage was to increase the lean period flow of the Bhagirathi-Hooghly branch of Ganga to increase the water depth at the Kolkota port which was threatened by siltation. As irrigation withdrawals increased in Bangladesh, dispute arose between India and Bangladesh over the sharing of the lean season flow at Farakka. The inadequacy of water during the lean season to meet the assessed demands in the two countries is the root cause of the conflict. The Bangladesh government feels that the reduction in flow caused damage to agriculture, industry and ecology in the basin in Bangladesh. The government of India feels that such misgivings are misplaced. Because of the inability of the concerned governments to come to any lasting agreement over the last few decades on sharing the river water, this problem has grown and now it is also viewed as a case of upstream-downstream dispute. In the relationship between India and Bangladesh, the dispute over Ganga water was an important component for over two decades. In 1977, the two countries reached a five-year agreement on water sharing which was signed in November 1977. However, the basic issues remained un-solved and hence, the agreement was not renewed and lapsed in 1982. Later, a proposal was mooted by India to augment the flow of Ganga at Farakka by constructing a barrage across the Brahmaputra at Jogighopa in India and transfer water to Farakka through a canal. A proposal from Bangladesh was to construct a series of reservoirs on the tributaries of Ganga in Nepal. But this would have brought Nepal also in the picture. None of these proposals could be implemented. According to the Bangladesh view of this dispute, there was a “unilateral diversion” of the waters of the Ganga by India at Farakka to the detriment of Bangladesh and the resulting reduction in flows had severe adverse effects on Bangladesh. It was also projected that this was a case of a large and more powerful country disregarding the interests of a small and weaker neighbour. This has been one topic on which there has been complete unanimity in Bangladesh. Sentiments grew to such an extent that India was projected as being responsible for all water related disasters, whether drought or floods and the Farakka project was supposed to be the cause behind all water related problems. The perceptions on the Indian side were entirely different. Ganga River is closely intertwined with the religious and social life of the people. Also important are the legitimate needs of the Kolkota Port in the light of siltation and growth of future traffic. After the liberation of Bangladesh, the general perception was that two countries should strive to establish stable and friendly relations. Thus, the position of Bangladesh was unbelievable to many Indians and the general feeling was that Bangladesh had taken an un-necessarily rigid and unreasonable stand on this issue. It was felt that Bangladesh had greatly overstated its water needs and its claim was disproportionate to its fair share by any logic. Regarding diversion of water for the Kolkota port through the Farakka Barrage, the view was that Bangladesh had magnified the adverse effects due to reduced flows and it was unfair on their part to blame India for flood problem. A further complication was the feeling on the parts of the concerned State Governments in India that their interests had not been properly addressed by the Central Government during bilateral talks with Bangladesh. For several years after 1990, there was a virtual stalemate between the two governments on this issue. Finally, an agreement was reached and a Treaty on the sharing of Ganga water between India and Bangladesh was signed on 12 December 1996. The Treaty is essentially regarding the sharing of lean-season flows, although there is an article which recognizes the need for cooperation in finding a solution to the long-term problem of augmentation. The sharing formula agreed in the Treaty is related to actual flows at various levels and not to 75% dependable flows as in past agreements. The basic formula is that of equal sharing of the lean-season flows by the two countries. This applies to a range of flows, with two modifications at the upper and lower extremes. At the upper end, there is a slight increase in India’s share to enable it to divert 1,132.66 cumec (40,000 cusec) (the full diversion capacity of the Farakka feeder canal) at a flow level of 2,123.74 cumec (75,000 cusec) instead of 2,265.33 cumec (80,000 cusec). Above 2,123.74 cumec (75,000 cusec), India’s share is held at 1,132.66 cumec and the balance goes to Bangladesh. Some people view the Treaty as a political rather than a technical settlement. Although the issue now stands resolved, some people feel that it has not been resolved for ever. The Treaty is a 30-year Treaty (renewable further), with a provision for a review at the end of five years, or even at the end of two years, if either party wants it.