Relations also influencing Ganges treaty talks

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: We have about four weeks left. I would not say it is entirely impossible. However, the chances of concluding a completely new treaty within this period are very slim. It may still be possible to renew the existing treaty at the last moment. Such a decision requires agreement at the highest political level. Not everything can be resolved through technical discussions alone. In my view, given the current circumstances, the treaty could be renewed for three to five years as an interim arrangement. During this period, preparations must be made for a new treaty that safeguards Bangladesh’s interests.

The existing treaty has many limitations. It does not fully protect the needs of our economy, environment and biodiversity. However, having no treaty at all is worse than having a weak one. We suffered during the periods in the past when there was no treaty. Therefore, we need to maintain an existing arrangement while working towards a better agreement. Moving towards negotiations covering the entire river basin will also require time and preparation.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: Over the past 30 years, at least we have had a treaty and a framework for sharing water. We have received water within that framework. But receiving the water we are entitled to and meeting our actual needs are two different things. We have not always received even the amount of water promised under the treaty. A major limitation is that only the water reaching Farakka is shared. Yet, much further upstream, water is being diverted through various means. If the volume of water reaching Farakka itself decreases, simply sharing that water will not solve the problem.

Another issue is that the main water-sharing schedule covers the period from January to May. But a river flows throughout the year. Monsoon flows, floods, sediment and dry-season water shortages must all be considered together. There has also been insufficient progress on how to store monsoon water to increase flows during the dry season.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: We should not limit ourselves to bargaining over a single figure or how many cusecs of water we will receive. First, we need to examine how much water enters the entire basin, where and how it is being used, and who is benefiting from it.

Water demand and river flows are not fixed; they change over time. Climate change must also be taken into account. Most importantly, the river itself needs water. If the two countries divide all the water between themselves, how will the river survive? Sufficient water must be reserved to maintain the river’s flow, biodiversity and the livelihoods of people who depend on it.

The amount of flow required in each section should not be determined through political bargaining; it must be established through research. Bangladesh’s demands should take into account the needs of tributaries, including the Gorai, the Sundarbans, agriculture, fisheries and people. If we calculate only how much water can be taken from the river, both the river and the people will suffer.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: The biggest change would be that, instead of sharing the remaining water at a particular point, the entire river and its tributaries would be considered together. Water withdrawals upstream, storage, power generation, irrigation and the needs of downstream areas would all be part of the discussions. Tributaries flowing from Nepal play an important role in the Ganges’ dry-season flow. We should therefore try to bring Nepal into the negotiations. Similarly, we need to consider the countries concerned in the Brahmaputra and Meghna basins.

Our long-term goal should be to establish an integrated arrangement for the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna basins. If it is not possible to do everything at once, we could at least start with one basin. If we take five years to prepare and then conclude a basin-based treaty, it would make a major and lasting positive contribution to the country. We also need to consider sharing the various benefits derived from rivers, including electricity generation. If discussions remain limited to how many cusecs of water we receive, many opportunities for cooperation will be left out.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: My proposal is that the treaty’s fundamental principles should remain in place for the long term. These should include ensuring that upstream activities do not cause major harm downstream, protecting the river’s environment and biodiversity, and sharing benefits equitably. However, specific arrangements, such as the volume of water available and the measures to be taken in different seasons, should be reviewed periodically. Conditions may change after 10 or 15 years. The course of the river may also change. Therefore, while the principles should remain permanent, there must be scope to adjust practical arrangements as necessary.

There must be effective guarantees of water availability and an arbitration mechanism for resolving disputes. Simply setting another long term for the treaty while retaining its existing limitations will not work. This is precisely where my objection lies: renewing the current treaty unchanged for another 30 years could harm Bangladesh in the long run.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: A ‘guarantee clause’ is essential. There must be an assurance that Bangladesh will receive the water it needs during the dry season. It must also be clearly stipulated how any shortfall will be shared if water availability declines. However, adding a single clause will not be enough; the reasons for the reduced flow at Farakka must also be addressed.

Serious consideration must be given to storing monsoon water to increase flows during the dry season. Research could be conducted into how much of the demand in the Bhagirathi-Hooghly could be met through water management in the tributaries that flow into it. We need to examine whether this could reduce the pressure to divert water from Farakka. The amount of water required by the Port of Kolkata should also be assessed. The relative importance of a port’s needs must be questioned in comparison with the needs of downstream communities and their livelihoods.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: The government is trying to do what it can within the existing framework. I would not say it is doing nothing. However, from what I have observed, the process has slowed on India’s side. There is talk of the Joint Rivers Commission and technical discussions, yet time is almost up. The Joint Rivers Commission is not an institution belonging to Bangladesh alone; India is also a part of it. Without political goodwill, the commission cannot conclude a treaty on its own. The strained relations between the two countries are also affecting the atmosphere for negotiations.

We need a permanent, multidisciplinary team of experts. It should include water specialists, diplomats, environmentalists, sociologists and people with an understanding of international river law. They must be given a budget and the opportunity to work continuously. Preparing only when a treaty is about to expire will not be enough.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: The treaty must include an effective arbitration mechanism. We need to address the weakness in the existing arrangement, which does not clearly establish what happens if discussions fail to resolve a dispute. It is also essential to make water data publicly accessible. Information on how much water is reaching Farakka, how much is being diverted and how much Bangladesh is receiving should be published in as close to real time as possible. Technology now makes it possible to collect and publish data regularly.

The measurement methods must be scientific and acceptable to both sides. There must also be a mechanism to quickly identify and explain any discrepancies in the data. Simply telling people that water is or is not being received is not enough. They should be able to see from the data what is actually happening.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: Experience suggests otherwise. During Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, relations with India were very close. Even so, the Teesta agreement was not signed. Nor was there the expected progress in discussions on other shared rivers. When it comes to water, India is an unreliable friend. In my assessment, India also views water as an instrument of geopolitical influence. So we cannot rely on friendship alone. We must negotiate firmly on the basis of Bangladesh’s needs and interests.

I am not opposed to allowing India to use Bangladesh for transit or to access its ports. There should be cooperation. But Bangladesh has its own needs too. We must raise our water requirements in discussions on waterways and other areas of cooperation. The fact that water is essential to keeping waterways navigable could itself be a strong argument in negotiations. There is no reason for Bangladesh always to see itself as the weaker party.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: The entire problem cannot be explained by the objections of a particular Indian state or chief minister. When the Trinamool Congress was in power in West Bengal, objections from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee were cited as the reason the Teesta agreement was not signed. Now the BJP is in power in West Bengal, meaning the same party governs both the state and the centre. So will the Teesta agreement be signed now? But the current chief minister has also been making negative remarks on the issue. The key question is what decisions the Indian state is taking and how much political goodwill it has.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: People in India have also been affected by riverbank erosion, siltation and flooding. Residents of Malda and other areas repeatedly lose their homes. Their experiences are similar to those of people living along the Padma in Bangladesh who suffer from riverbank erosion. It is the same river, and they face similar hardships.

We should step up contact with Indian river researchers, environmental activists and people affected by these problems. They could be invited to Bangladesh to see what is happening as a result of reduced water flows. There is an opportunity to build a common position on the river’s natural flow and the lives, livelihoods, homes and safety of people living on both banks. Such engagement is necessary alongside discussions at the government level.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: I support the idea of using the Padma Barrage to store water and supply it to distributaries and irrigation systems. However, it will be expensive and take time to implement. We must also make use of other opportunities. Many canals and rivers fill with water during the monsoon but dry up in the dry season. We should explore the scope for retaining water through excavation and regulated systems, depending on the location. That water could be used for irrigation, fish farming and other purposes. Rather than relying solely on one large structure, we need water-storage facilities in different locations. Maintaining connections between rivers and their floodplains is also important. However, any such arrangement must take account of downstream flows and the river environment.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: There are geopolitical calculations surrounding the Teesta. Given its location near the Siliguri Corridor, India is concerned about China’s presence there. Bangladesh will make its own decisions on its own territory, but it also needs to pursue pragmatic diplomacy.

My question is: why are we not first considering the option of planning the project with our own funds, according to our own needs? Whatever country we sign an agreement or understanding with, the project must be designed by Bangladeshi water experts, environmentalists and engineers. The goal should be to conserve and use water while protecting the river. An international tender can then be invited. The organisation that can deliver good work at a suitable price should be awarded the project. Why should the plans of whichever country provides the funding automatically become our plans? Bangladesh must retain control over the project and set its priorities.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: We must immediately try to renew the treaty for an interim period to avoid a situation in which there is no agreement. We should not wait until the day after the treaty expires. If we secure an extension of three to five years, we must use that time to prepare a new treaty. Simply signing an agreement and stopping there is not enough; we must also take the necessary follow-up steps. Collecting data, conducting research, assessing needs and forming a negotiating team must all move forward together. We must move towards a basin-based arrangement involving the relevant countries, including Nepal. We can start with one basin, learn from the experience and then move on to others.

Above all, we need to strengthen our capacity for water diplomacy. Our diplomats must understand rivers and water science, while water experts must understand diplomacy. We must move forward in the coming days with the long-term interests of the people, economy and environment of the country in mind.

Manjur Ahmed Chowdhury: Thank you, too.