Upreti, Trilochan, International Watercourses Law and Its Application ...
Upreti, Trilochan, International Watercourses Law and Its Application ... Upreti, Trilochan, International Watercourses Law and Its Application ...
Legality River Linking Project / 265 266 / International Watercourses Law and Its Application in South Asiause such resources, but these rules could be applicabledifferently in different situations. 11 The main theme of the lawis that international watercourses should be shared in areasonable, sustainable and equitable manner and Article 6provides seventeen considerations to be applied for sharingsuch resources in such circumstances. 12 Furthermore, equalweights have been given to all elements, which means that nosingle consideration outweighs the others. However, Article 10provides that the vital human needs, supposedly drinking use,will get the top priority over other uses. Consideration of theprocedural underpinnings requires a co-riparian state to givenotice and information together with the copies of such plansand studies contemplated over international watercourses inorder to obtain the consent of the neighbours that would beaffected by such an undertaking. If such consent is notforthcoming and objections are raised by riparian states,negotiation for achieving consent would be required. Thisprocess itself is very complex and could take years to completethe exercise.In the contextual situation of the Brahmaputra or the Gangesriver, if the drinking water needs of Bangladesh were to beimpeded by any irrigation and other uses in Indian territory, theformer use must of necessity get top priority and the latter usescannot be justified as reasonable and equitable. In anotherinstance, if the RLP conceived by India could hamper theexisting irrigation, drinking water, navigational and other usesof Bangladesh, such work would be considered inequitable andunreasonable. Similar provisions would be applicable to each ofthe riparian states of south Asia from the proposed RLP. That isto say, the RLP should not inflict any harm or injury to otherriparian states such as Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh. It isobvious that the anticipated repercussions of the project wouldgo contrary to this principle. In other words, there would11 36 ILM (1997), pp. 700-720.12 Ibid.naturally arise hindrances, injury or harm in one way or other tothe upstream and downstream riparian states.For instance, the implementation of the RLP would necessitatethe construction of several high dams and structures in Nepal,Bhutan, and India, which could be harmful for the environmentincluding aquatic life, not to mention the highly sensitiveattendant problems of the resettlement and rehabilitation ofmillions of people. Furthermore, such structures woulddecimate huge tracts of forests with all their biodiversity,national parks and sanctuaries, religious sites, and adverselyaffect the livelihoods of ethnic people. According to SureshPrabhu, past Indian record on rehabilitation is deplorable. 13 Thecases of other south Asian countries have worsening record.The drastic alteration in the existing hydrology and climaticconditions could engender an environmental disaster. These aresome of the anticipated inevitable consequences of theproposed project. How India's neighbours would be benefitedor compensated for such inevitabilities, or what would be thestatus of the existing treaty regime and how they would bereplaced with a new treaty regime are very staggering andintricate issues. It would be a very tricky, complex andprotracted process to negotiate and finalise a treaty in thisconnection. In a milieu of democratic dispensation wherevehement arguments for and against mammoth water resourceprojects have a right to be heeded, all stakeholders- affectedstates, people, civil societies, NGOs, experts, political partiesand diverse interest groups- must be provided the opportunityto voice their concerns. Hitherto, such a process has beentaking place in India and, in a few instances, in Bangladesh. Itis understood that Nepal and Bhutan have not even bothered toinitiate such a discussion yet at any appreciable level.It is germane to shed some light on the outcome of suchexercises held in India in this highly charged context. It is13 Supra note 1.
Legality River Linking Project / 267 268 / International Watercourses Law and Its Application in South Asiaunderstood that the states of Kerala, Bihar, West Bengal,Assam, Punjab, Chatisgarh and Goa have heavily criticised theconcept whilst Gujrat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa andMaharastra have shown only conditional consent. In essence,the recipients of water are in favour and the donors are deadagainst the proposed undertaking. 14 Apart from this, almost allof the environmentalists, human right activists, experts andformer bureaucrats are not only against the concept but alsorebutting that it is infeasible, environmentally damaging andasserting that it would create more problems than offersolutions. 15 Even if the Union Government succeeded insatisfying the divergent interests of these states, it would be adaunting uphill task to obtain riparian consents from India’sneighbours.Overall, Bangladesh is dead against the project and comparesthe concept to a macabre intrigue to render its territory into awasteland. Hence, it would be a question of life and death forits existence. 16 Moreover, Bangladesh has not only handed overits protest to India but also strongly opposed it at the highestpolitical level. It has criticised that the concept is politicallyunsound, technically infeasible and very wrong from theviewpoint of International Water Law and practice. This topichas brought about tectonic upheavals of opinion in these twonations; however, ironically enough, Nepal’s official stand onthe issue appears to be blissfully oblivious of all thisdevelopment. In fact, like the other neighbours, it could posebefore her momentous questions relating to her survival andfurther development. If she were prudent enough to take up thismatter seriously and strive to protect her national interests, herfuture would not be jeopardised. Otherwise, she would againfail forever without a chance of improving or amending thesituation. Clearly, she would be a loser forever. The strange andperplexing matter is that Nepal Government; political parties,NGOs and civil society are very reticent on such a seriousmatter of stupendous ramifications for this nation, which couldpose a very grave future threat for her. Proper studies, debatesand deliberations to cross check and explore the threats as wellas the opportunities confronting her bolstered by the formationof a national consensus for ensuring the national interest arematters of prime urgency and the pressing need of the hour. 17The reality is that water in south Asia is in surplus in someplaces and scarce in others. During the dry season, water isscarce almost everywhere and, in the monsoon season a surfeitof it creates the havoc of floods. Thus, the management of thiswater for the beneficial use of all poses a formidable challengeand the complicated issues of sharing the benefits ofinternational watercourses need to be sorted out keeping allinterests in due focus and consideration. No doubt, there isasymmetry in terms of the landmass, economic prowess andwater requirement and compulsions of hydrology andavailability of alternative sources of water amongst thecountries of the region. 18 Moreover, the history of the pastcooperation in this area has not been satisfactory and repletewith bitter experiences, suspicion and examples of inequitablesharing.The proposed RLP, in all likelihood, is bound to severely affectthe interests of all riparian nations. Even the past treaties havenot been implemented in good faith and the problems thatemerged from their implementation have not been yet14 U. Shankari (ed), Interlinking Rivers: Contradictions &Confrontations, A Report on electronic debate, New Delhi: Centre forthe Study of the Developing Societies, 2004, pp. 24-37.15 R. R. Iyer, "Making of a Subcontinent Fiasco" Himal South Asian,August (2003), pp.1-8.16 www.internationalwaterlaw.org17 T. Upreti, Dimension of India's River-Linking Project" (14 & 15,2004), The Katmandu Post.18 S. Aiyer, "Changing the Course" XXVII India Today, (20-1-2003), pp.28-32.
- Page 98 and 99: Equitable Utilisation / 167 168 / I
- Page 100 and 101: Equitable Utilisation / 171 172 / I
- Page 102 and 103: Equitable Utilisation / 175 176 / I
- Page 104 and 105: Article 6 of the Rio Declaration as
- Page 106 and 107: 182 / International Watercourses La
- Page 108 and 109: 186 / International Watercourses La
- Page 110 and 111: 190 / International Watercourses La
- Page 112 and 113: 194 / International Watercourses La
- Page 114 and 115: 198 / International Watercourses La
- Page 116 and 117: 202 / International Watercourses La
- Page 118 and 119: 206 / International Watercourses La
- Page 120 and 121: 210 / International Watercourses La
- Page 122 and 123: 214 / International Watercourses La
- Page 124 and 125: 218 / International Watercourses La
- Page 126 and 127: 222 / International Watercourses La
- Page 128 and 129: 226 / International Watercourses La
- Page 130 and 131: 230 / International Watercourses La
- Page 132 and 133: 234 / International Watercourses La
- Page 134 and 135: 238 / International Watercourses La
- Page 136 and 137: 242 / International Watercourses La
- Page 138 and 139: 246 / International Watercourses La
- Page 140 and 141: 250 / International Watercourses La
- Page 142 and 143: 254 / International Watercourses La
- Page 144 and 145: Legality River Linking Project / 25
- Page 146 and 147: Legality River Linking Project / 26
- Page 150 and 151: Legality River Linking Project / 26
- Page 152 and 153: Legality River Linking Project / 27
- Page 154 and 155: the USA to construct such a huge pr
- Page 156 and 157: 280 / International Watercourses La
- Page 158 and 159: 284 / International Watercourses La
- Page 160 and 161: 288 / International Watercourses La
- Page 162 and 163: 292 / International Watercourses La
- Page 164 and 165: 296 / International Watercourses La
- Page 166 and 167: 300 / International Watercourses La
- Page 168 and 169: 304 / International Watercourses La
- Page 170 and 171: 308 / International Watercourses La
- Page 172 and 173: 312 / International Watercourses La
- Page 174 and 175: 316 / International Watercourses La
- Page 176 and 177: 320 / International Watercourses La
- Page 178 and 179: 324 / International Watercourses La
- Page 180 and 181: 328 / International Watercourses La
- Page 182 and 183: 332 / International Watercourses La
- Page 184 and 185: 336 / International Watercourses La
- Page 186 and 187: 340 / International Watercourses La
- Page 188 and 189: 344 / International Watercourses La
- Page 190 and 191: 348 / International Watercourses La
- Page 192 and 193: 352 / International Watercourses La
- Page 194 and 195: 356 / International Watercourses La
- Page 196 and 197: 360 / International Watercourses La
Legality River Linking Project / 267 268 / <strong>International</strong> <strong>Watercourses</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Its</strong> <strong>Application</strong> in South Asiaunderstood that the states of Kerala, Bihar, West Bengal,Assam, Punjab, Chatisgarh <strong>and</strong> Goa have heavily criticised theconcept whilst Gujrat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa <strong>and</strong>Maharastra have shown only conditional consent. In essence,the recipients of water are in favour <strong>and</strong> the donors are deadagainst the proposed undertaking. 14 Apart from this, almost allof the environmentalists, human right activists, experts <strong>and</strong>former bureaucrats are not only against the concept but alsorebutting that it is infeasible, environmentally damaging <strong>and</strong>asserting that it would create more problems than offersolutions. 15 Even if the Union Government succeeded insatisfying the divergent interests of these states, it would be adaunting uphill task to obtain riparian consents from India’sneighbours.Overall, Bangladesh is dead against the project <strong>and</strong> comparesthe concept to a macabre intrigue to render its territory into awastel<strong>and</strong>. Hence, it would be a question of life <strong>and</strong> death forits existence. 16 Moreover, Bangladesh has not only h<strong>and</strong>ed overits protest to India but also strongly opposed it at the highestpolitical level. It has criticised that the concept is politicallyunsound, technically infeasible <strong>and</strong> very wrong from theviewpoint of <strong>International</strong> Water <strong>Law</strong> <strong>and</strong> practice. This topichas brought about tectonic upheavals of opinion in these twonations; however, ironically enough, Nepal’s official st<strong>and</strong> onthe issue appears to be blissfully oblivious of all thisdevelopment. In fact, like the other neighbours, it could posebefore her momentous questions relating to her survival <strong>and</strong>further development. If she were prudent enough to take up thismatter seriously <strong>and</strong> strive to protect her national interests, herfuture would not be jeopardised. Otherwise, she would againfail forever without a chance of improving or amending thesituation. Clearly, she would be a loser forever. The strange <strong>and</strong>perplexing matter is that Nepal Government; political parties,NGOs <strong>and</strong> civil society are very reticent on such a seriousmatter of stupendous ramifications for this nation, which couldpose a very grave future threat for her. Proper studies, debates<strong>and</strong> deliberations to cross check <strong>and</strong> explore the threats as wellas the opportunities confronting her bolstered by the formationof a national consensus for ensuring the national interest arematters of prime urgency <strong>and</strong> the pressing need of the hour. 17The reality is that water in south Asia is in surplus in someplaces <strong>and</strong> scarce in others. During the dry season, water isscarce almost everywhere <strong>and</strong>, in the monsoon season a surfeitof it creates the havoc of floods. Thus, the management of thiswater for the beneficial use of all poses a formidable challenge<strong>and</strong> the complicated issues of sharing the benefits ofinternational watercourses need to be sorted out keeping allinterests in due focus <strong>and</strong> consideration. No doubt, there isasymmetry in terms of the l<strong>and</strong>mass, economic prowess <strong>and</strong>water requirement <strong>and</strong> compulsions of hydrology <strong>and</strong>availability of alternative sources of water amongst thecountries of the region. 18 Moreover, the history of the pastcooperation in this area has not been satisfactory <strong>and</strong> repletewith bitter experiences, suspicion <strong>and</strong> examples of inequitablesharing.The proposed RLP, in all likelihood, is bound to severely affectthe interests of all riparian nations. Even the past treaties havenot been implemented in good faith <strong>and</strong> the problems thatemerged from their implementation have not been yet14 U. Shankari (ed), Interlinking Rivers: Contradictions &Confrontations, A Report on electronic debate, New Delhi: Centre forthe Study of the Developing Societies, 2004, pp. 24-37.15 R. R. Iyer, "Making of a Subcontinent Fiasco" Himal South Asian,August (2003), pp.1-8.16 www.internationalwaterlaw.org17 T. <strong>Upreti</strong>, Dimension of India's River-Linking Project" (14 & 15,2004), The Katm<strong>and</strong>u Post.18 S. Aiyer, "Changing the Course" XXVII India Today, (20-1-2003), pp.28-32.
Change language