Extinction of rivers
PM is right, but states should walk his talk
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Tuesday that many of the country’s rivers existed only on the map as they had no water in them, he was alluding basically to a fact that is widely appreciated but has not spurred adequate remedial action. While numerous small rivers and rivulets, which once flowed the year-round, have already dried up or have become seasonal streams, many more — like Bharathapuzha (mentioned by Mr Modi) and Ghaggar — are on the endangered list. The blame for the dismal state of rivers lies with both the state governments, which are the legal custodians of water resources within their territories, and the people dwelling around them who mindlessly vandalise these channels. Most states have no action plans in place aimed specifically at safeguarding the rivers from threatened disappearance. Existing river management strategies are focused primarily on mitigating the pollution of their waters though these have failed to achieve even this objective.
The genesis of the menace of river extinctions is rooted largely in the poor upkeep of their catchments which feed water into them. Most of India’s major, minor and small rivers are either rainfed (read monsoon-fed) or snow-fed or both rain- and snow-fed. The green cover of their catchments needs to be preserved at all costs to ensure sustained water inflows into them. Even the riverbeds, crucial for holding monsoon flows, need to be kept free of encroachment which, regrettably, is not the case. The rivers originating from the Himalayas, too, are at risk because of rapid melting of glaciers and erosion of vegetation thanks to indiscriminate mining, tourism, construction and other human activities.
Though Mr Modi has commended the Madhya Pradesh government’s Narmada Conservation Action Plan as the role model for river protection and rejuvenation across the country, it may be unwise to do so blindly. The key factors behind the woeful plight of the rivers may be the same in most cases, but certain situation-specific causes can also be equally critical to require different strategies to tackle them. This apart, the effectiveness of the Narmada conservation plan is yet to be validated. Some of the components of this plan, no doubt, seem well advised and may, therefore, be worthy of emulating elsewhere. These include, among others, extensive planting of tree saplings in the river catchment and all along its embankments and, more importantly, conversion of all the towns around the river into mini smart cities with zero discharge of any untreated effluent into the river. However, implementation of such impressive proposals is unlikely to be free of glitches. Indeed, the programmes to check the discharge of wastes into the rivers are part of practically all river rejuvenation projects, but none of them has shown tangible outcomes as yet. The Ganga action plan, which was originally launched way back in the 1980s by then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, can be a typical case in point. Despite all the successive governments pursuing the commitment to curb disposal of wastes into this river, this malpractice has continued unabated.
If there is one lesson that can be learnt from the river protection projects tried out so far, it is that no game plan, however well conceived, can work without the participation and, more so, the wholehearted support of the local people. In fact, to be effective, the programmes have to be need-based and planned with people’s involvement. The government’s role should be confined largely to provision of funds, technological support and creation of necessary supportive infrastructure.