By Indar Jit
(Released on 19 September 1978)
Nature alone is not to blame for the floods which have savagely hit India this year. Man is also greatly responsible for what has alas come to pass and for the unprecedented devastation. Undoubtedly, not a little has been done during the past 30 years. In terms of money, Rs 633 crores has been expended so far on flood protection measures, Dibrugarh in Assam has, for instance, been saved from being devoured by the Brahmaputra. Flood protection has been given to over 9 million hectares out of 20 million hectares requiring it. Nevertheless, as the recent floods have shown, the major problem remains largely untackled. Some veterans among acknowledged experts doubt if even Rs 200 crores has been spent actually on flood control measures. My investigations over the past weak reveal a distressing story of inaction, muddling, corruption and absurdities. Indeed, these largely confirm a dominant impression of many informed observers: the latest flood havoc symbolises one of free India´s great failures.
India has suffered a damage of Rs. 6,500 crores since 1953, according to available statistics. In addition, thousands of human lives and cattle have been lost. Yet, we do not still have a comprehensive programme for flood control or an integrated plan of national action. Unlike in the case of famine, the Government of India does not even have a manual or blue book on floods to help organize speedy relief, as Delhi’s Mayor and other leaders discovered to their dismay. Other absurdities abound and are symbolised by two chance discoveries. Under an old agreement, Delhi is barred from drawing more than 100 cusecs from the Yamuna for its requirement. It is consequently constrained to “buy” water for drinking and other use from Bhakra, Haryana and UP. It has agreed to pay UP Rs. 60 lakhs annually for 200 cusec of drinking water from the Ramganga reservoir, apart from providing the conduit pipes at a cost of 58 crores. That is not all. It is also required to pay for the Yamuna water it uses for cooling its “C” power station in Indraprastha Estate!
Much of the trouble has arisen due to an astonishing absence of any specific reference to “flood control” in the Constitution — either in the Union, State or Concurrent list. Thoughts at the Centre in regard to river waters and their regulation and development were consequently confined initially to their use for irrigation and power generation. Flood control came to be accepted as belonging to the State sector a matter in which the Centre gladly acquiesced. New Delhi first became conscious of the problem on a national basis only in 1954 when the country suffered disastrous floods and the Nehru Government was forced to sit up. In fact, the Central Water and Power Commission did not have a flood wing until that year. As Dr Kanwar Sain, then Chairman of the CWPC, candidly recalled in a stimulating talk: “We did not even have authentic information in regard to the extent of the floods or the havoc caused. Newspapers were our only source of information!”
The situation was sought to be corrected. A National Flood Control Programme was launched and in 1956 legislation was enacted to empower the Centre to establish River Boards to draw up comprehensive plans for regulation and development of inter-State rivers and help the States implement them. Schemes were then prepared for setting up initially River Boards for the Narmada, Krishna, Godavari and Kaveri. But all the four Boards were scuttled by the concerned States in 1963 even though Parliament had voted monies for their establishment. These States cleverly exploited certain lacunae in the Act to interpret the provision for consultation” to mean “content”. Eventually, Dr K.L. Rao, then Minister, dropped the Boards since nothing could be achieved without the cooperation of the States. Instead, he decided to get the Central Water and Power Commission to draw up the schemes and sought 4 orores for the purpose. But this proposal, too, got shot down.
No one need be surprised by the attitude of the States. Over the years, powerful vested interests have grown around funds provided for flood control, widely acknowledged as “easy money since a proper check on its disbursement is difficult. Kosi, once known as the river of sorrow, brought, for instance, much joy and affluence to not a few. (Expert reckon that on an average not more than Rs. 40 is actually spent on flood control out of every Rs 100 sanctioned.) Vested interest has, moreover, grown around floods itself. Most flood-prone States are known to look forward not only to the traditional rabi and kharif crops but also to the special relief crop” which brings them by far the best dividends — maximum return on minimum or zero investment! Of interest in this context was a strong plea by an MP recently during Parliament’s monsoon session for provision of sizable funds for flood relief in his State. When the Minister pointed out that there were no floods in the State, pat came the reply: “But, Sir, they will be coming soon.”
Over the years, powerful vested interests have grown around funds provided for flood control, widely acknowledged as “easy money since a proper check on its disbursement is difficult.
Can the situation be remedied? Yes. The Centre has the requisite power under the Constitution to directly undertake flood control, even if the two words do not occur in it. Item 56 in the Union List authorises the Centre to enact legislation for the regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valley to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest.” The States also have power in regard to “water supplies, irrigation and canals and drainage and embankments” under item 17 of the State List. Significantly, however, these are “subject to the provisions of entry 56 of the Union List.” Doubts in the matter, I am told, were firmly set at rest by the former Attorney General some four years ago, thanks to the initiative and perseverance of the Central Water Commission. In fact, an Inter-State Rivers and River Valleys (Regulation and Development) Bill was even drafted early in 1975. But the Emergency pushed it into cold storage.
The Centre has the requisite power under the Constitution to directly undertake flood control, even if the two words do not occur in it. Item 56 in the Union List authorises the Centre to enact legislation for the regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valley to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest.”
Happily, the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation has reacted promptly and positively to the latest flood disaster. A working group has been set up to prepare within three months the outline of an integrated flood control project for implementation during the next five to seven years — and a Plan of action which will have an “immediate effect” in reducing the intensity of foods. A sub-group on major engineering works will draw up priorities for schemes in 14 flood-prone rivers and any other river or tributary in the Indo-Gangetic basin. It will also examine the need for legislative and other administrative measures for regulation of human settlements. A Second sub-group on watershed management will identify priority catchments and suggest action needed for checking indiscriminate deforestation and abuse of land which accelerates erosion. But all their labour may and up as an exercise in futility unless the Centre pulls the aforementioned draft bill out of its shelves and arms itself with adequate powers.
Authoritative sources do not accept the view that the periodicity or intensity of floods has increased since independence or that floods have increased due to reaction of forests and vegetal cover. Nevertheless, many Janata leaders believe that large-scale deforestation in the Himalayas is mainly responsible for the flood havoc in the Ganga basin. Invaluable satellite pictures show, for instance, that the recent unprecedented floods in Uttar Kashi were caused by criminal deforestation. Records with the UP Government reportedly show that forests cover 85 per cent of the area in Uttar Kashi as against 15 per cent now shown in the satellite pictures. Consequently, erosion has led to heavy silting of river beds — and more floods. The extent of siltation is not generally known. As the Union Minister Mr. H.N. Bahuguna, told a seminar on “The People and Forest” in January last: “Erosion in the case of Sutlej is 150 acre feet and in that of Yamuna 400 acre feet in a catchment area of 100 sq miles. In sharp contrast, erosion over a corresponding area is only 1 acre feet for Colombia and 6 acre feet for Mississippi in the USA.”
In the final analysis, however, floods cannot be eliminated. We have to learn to live and dance wish them, as Assam’s former Chief Minister, Mr Sarat Sinha, once told me in Gauhati. This principle is incorporated in the concept of Flood Plain Zoning, which seeks to determine the areas likely to be affected by floods and to develop those areas in a way that the damage is minimized. A model bill for flood plain zoning was circulated by the Centre in September 1974 to the chronically-flood affected States of Assam, Bihar, Orissa, UP and West Bengal. The question was reviewed by the States in 1975 and again in 1976. But even the Emergency did not help. The scheme has still not been given “due importance” by the States. Incidentally, Cambodia has made good use of the concept. During the floods, its Grand Lake spreads over 10,000 sq kms as against 3,000 sq kms normally. But no great damage is caused. Instead of travelling around by road, people move about in boats.
As Dr Kanwar Sain, who was Engineering Director of the Mekong (Maha Ganga) Project for nine years said: “Thirty years have been largely wasted. Let us now get on with the job.”
New Delhi has done well to allocate Rs. 700 crores for flood control over the next five years. This amount is, however, not likely to achieve much, as 450 crores alone are required for the on-going schemes. Latest official thinking, therefore, favours about Rs 1,000 crores to Rs. 1,200 crores. But even this amount will not help unless the Centre takes full charge of the flood control problem as done in the USA, the USSR and now in China. The key to flood control in the Ganga basin lies primarily in India and not in Nepal, as suggested by some Bihar leaders. New Delhi must watch out against alibis for inaction and seek cooperation of Nepal only where necessary on the basis of a quid pro quo. Meanwhile, the Rashtriya Barh Ayog, headed by Mr Jaisukh Lal Hathi, Punjab Governor, could perhaps be asked to submit an interim report. As Dr Kanwar Sain, who was Engineering Director of the Mekong (Maha Ganga) Project for nine years said: “Thirty years have been largely wasted. Let us now get on with the job.” — INFA