Water sharing: Agree to disagree

Was it surprising that, at the last moment, the Chief Minister of Paschimbanga decided not to accompany the Prime Minister of India to Bangladesh? Perhaps not, even though bilateral relations between the two countries are cordial, especially since the visit of Sheikh Hasina to India in 2010. The ruling party of Bangladesh has made every effort to improve relations, so where did the problem lie?
In India's federal system of government, individual states have sole authority over their rivers and any sharing must have the consensus of the government of the concerned state. Was Mamta Bannerjee not informed on a regular basis? How far did the Bangladesh government representatives negotiate with her on the Teesta deal? Even if they did not, according to reports Mamta had been in close contact with Delhi. Her U-turn must therefore have political significance. Perhaps, at the last minute, Mamta felt that the interests of her state and her popularity would be jeopardised by a 50-50 share of the Teesta water. The news provoked uproar in Bangladesh and sharp political debates broke out in the media.
Originating in Sikkim the Teesta river flows through Bangladesh to the Bay of Bengal. Both countries have an arrangement to share 75% of the water. The remaining 25% has become a controversial issue. Moreover, the Teesta river barrage at Gozaldoba in India controls the amount of river flow to the lower riparian state. This exclusive control, if badly used, could lead to floods during the rainy seasons and droughts in dry ones, thereby causing immeasurable harm to the people of northern Bangladesh. Too much or too little water will adversely impact over 63% of the total cropped area. This would also disrupt agricultural production, create health hazards, change the hydraulic character of the river and dangerously alter the ecology of the region. For instance, in 1982, severe food shortages in Bangladesh were attributed by the United Nations to the scarcity of Ganges water.
Prashanta Majumdar, an MP from Paschimbanga, strongly felt that an equitable share of the Teesta between the two countries might lead to crisis in the northern region from where he himself was elected. Even within India, water conflicts between states have caused much dissension, with the river Kaveri flowing through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu being one of the most well-known examples.
Even in water-rich basins such as the Mekong and the Euphrates, low flow of water during droughts can turn into disputes when upper-riparians have developed storage capacity. Examples can be cited of Vietnam and Thailand against China over the Mekong and Syria and Iraq against Turkey over the Euphrates. The UN 1997 Convention upholds cooperation, negotiation, consultation and equitable distribution of water resources. The Indus Water Treaty of 1960 has, however, provided a good example of water-sharing, which has survived the rocky relations between India and Pakistan. It has reservoirs for storage but also judicious water management and a strong external arbitrator.
Disputes over bilateral treaties and agreements are best resolved mutually although the Ganges Water dispute was included in the UN Agenda in 1976 as a result of the scale of the crisis when 33 million people of Bangladesh were adversely affected. The signing of the Ganges Water Treaty in 1977 displayed a spirit of collaboration by India.
Hydropolitics is a fast emerging area of international diplomacy in the 21st century and is receiving greater attention as water resources become scarcer and demand rises, thereby necessitating better management and sustainable use of this valuable resource.
Although the Teesta water sharing Treaty was not signed during the visit of the prime minister of India a number of agreements and MOUs have been signed which can bring long-term dividends to Bangladesh. They can be welcomed, but we remain concerned about equitable water sharing.
Out of over 300 rivers in Bangladesh 57 are trans-boundary, out of which 54 flow through India and 3 through Myanmar. Since this one water sharing treaty has been so complex, time consuming and yet subject to this latest set back, throwing gloom over a much awaited visit, then what protracted negotiations and delays might occur with the other rivers? A spirit of cooperation and astute diplomacy will become increasingly necessary in hydropolitics.
There is also public opinion to be considered. Although Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina forged strong links with India, and even though sensitive negotiations cannot always be made public, it is widely felt that civil society and opposition parties of Bangladesh could have been kept somewhat more in the loop during the prolonged negotiations and discussions leading to the visit of Manmohan Singh. Details of the negotiations were not clearly known, nor the complex issues at stake explained. Interviews by government representatives painted an overly optimistic picture with little information of the background work accomplished. Many could only surmise, speculate or infer without adequate knowledge.
Diplomacy is based on reciprocity. Given the Teesta setback, Bangladesh has requested a delay in dealing with questions of transit. Soon after, Manmohan Singh stated that India would follow "principles of equity, and fair play with no harm to either party." This is a difficult game to play. We can only wait with anticipation, with the transit issue as a negotiating asset. At the time of the visit, the football teams from Argentina and Nigeria provided welcome relief to counter the disappointment that the visit had not achieved all that had been expected. After all, nothing can beat good sports.

The writer is a former High Commissioner and former Head of Education and Human Resource Development Initiative, Commonwealth Secretariat, UK.