Looking Forward to Ganga Water Sharing Agreement

The Bangladesh-India Ganga Water Sharing Agreement was signed on 12 December 1996, which was valid for thirty years. Accordingly, the agreement will expire in December this year. There have been many changes to the Ganga water boundary over the past 30 years. As a result, discussions have been ongoing between the two countries for a long time regarding the renewal of the agreement. So far, no conclusion has been reached in the discussions. But will the agreement not be renewed?
Before entering into the complexities of the renewal, it is necessary to understand the 1996 agreement in brief. The flow of the Ganga water has been gradually decreasing for a long time. Water use has increased in many places upstream of this river in various states of India. As a result, the water flow at Farakka point is no longer available as before.
In 1996, it was assumed that 70,000 cusecs of water would be available at Farakka point. Accordingly, the two countries would share it equally. Even if the water flow is less for some reason, the sharing will be equal. If it increases from 70,000 cusecs to 75,000, Bangladesh’s share will be limited to 35,000. If more than 75,000 are received, India will get 40,000 cusecs, and Bangladesh will get the rest. However, during the forty-day period from 1 April to 10 May, both Bangladesh and India will get 35,000 cusecs in turn. Now, reportedly, the water flow at Farakka point has decreased to 15,000-20,000 cusecs. As a result, it is difficult to formulate a new water sharing formula.

The late public leader of Bangladesh, Maulana Bhashani, was always vocal about water sharing with India. On 16 May 1976, he called for a long march towards Farakka to protest the control of water flow through the Farakka Barrage. Many in Bangladesh still celebrate this day as Farakka Day. But the issue of water sharing is not a matter of political emotion. Over time, water sharing has become a part of larger environmental management.
The agreement made in 1996 had considerable limitations. First, it was not viewed from a holistic perspective. Rather, it was viewed only as a formula for distributing water. Second, there was no effective mechanism to monitor. In any such case, there is a need to monitor whether the formula is being followed properly. For effective monitoring, it is important to have an impartial system. It means that if there is a dispute between the two countries, a third party or an arbitrator may be designated to resolve it. The 1996 agreement only provides for negotiations between the river commissions of the two countries. But negotiations may not always bring a functional result. India generally does not accept the presence of a third party in resolving any bilateral issue. For this, the issue has to be taken out of the scope of water distribution. Is it possible?
The Ganges-Padma is a huge river. Its origin is in the northern part of the Himalayas. Though it falls within India’s geographic jurisdiction, Nepal and China also have stakes in the Himalayas. As a result, how much water the Ganges will produce at its source depends on the management of the Himalayan mountains. Again, the Ganges-Padma flows through India and Bangladesh and merges into the Bay of Bengal. The length of the Ganges is estimated to be about 2,300 kilometres and the Padma around 400. Before merging into the Bay of Bengal, two major rivers, namely the Brahmaputra-Jamuna and the Meghna, join the Padma. Although the source of the Brahmaputra is in the Himalayas, it flows through part of China. For this reason, Bangladeshi experts have always pointed towards a comprehensive solution combining all the rivers. Initiative must be taken to include China, Nepal and Bhutan in this process. As easy as it is to point out, it is definitely pretty difficult to implement. The most difficult task is to get India on board with this process. No country can be forced to be included in a regional process. In this case, the initiative must first be more beneficial for everyone, and secondly, good relations between the countries concerned need to be ensured.
If we are to judge realistically, such an initiative is far-fetched at the moment. We should rather look for an immediate solution. There is a bilateral forum called the Joint River Commission to discuss issues related to all the rivers flowing between Bangladesh and India. At the moment, we have to rely on this commission for revision and renewal of the agreement. Later, through further discussions, an additional forum to the Joint River Commission can be considered, and there can be an opportunity to address the overall context.
India and Pakistan have a permanent agreement on the sharing of the waters of the Indus River, which was signed in 1960. India unilaterally suspended it after the Pahalgam terrorist incident last year. There is tension between the two countries over this. The current strain in India’s relations with Bangladesh must be quickly converted into goodwill. Otherwise, it may affect the renewal of the Ganga Water Sharing Agreement. Unfortunately, it appears that the Bangladesh government has not prioritised the development of this relationship.
There is no single international law or practice on the sharing of the waters of a common river. However, many countries have had to resolve such disputes. There are multilateral agreements on the European river Danube. There are also agreements on the water sharing of the Nile River. In addition to the Indus River, the Mekong River Water Sharing Agreement is also an important reference in this area. In international law, the United Nations Watercourses Convention 1977, the Water Convention 1992 and the Helsinki Rules 1966 of the International Law Association served as guides in many cases in the sharing of water from common rivers, where equity and ‘no harm’ have been emphasised. I hope the members of the Bangladesh River Commission are aware and prepared in this regard.
Bargaining over water distribution is not just a technical task. This negotiation is part of a higher form of diplomacy. The younger generation must be prepared to be capable of this diplomacy. As a lower riparian country, Bangladesh has no other option.
_______________________
The writer is a former Bangladeshi Ambassador