D Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 05:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: D Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fwd: [riverlink] NRIs keen on river linking project
To: barada sarma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sarma,You may be interested in this. The meeting in Austin is today. Do you know these folks- Kannappan, Ratnala and Bahl?Dilip
Gopal Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Gopal Krishna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:35:38 +0530
Subject: [riverlink] NRIs keen on river linking project
Sockalingam 'Sam' Kannappan, a first generation immigrant from Nattarasankotti in Tamil Nadu who migrated to the United States in 1968, eagerly awaits a meeting with Suresh Prabhu, chairman of the task force on interlinking rivers in India during his visit to Texas this week.
Prabhu, now touring the US, is expected to be in Houston on June 25 and Austin on June 26.
Last October, Kannappan, who has more than 25 years of experience in petrochemical, power plant, nuclear and offshore design, read a report about the project which seeks to link India's major rivers within 15 years to tackle droughts, floods and disputes over the sharing of river waters in the country.
He then organized some of his friends in Houston to offer whatever help they could for this project. This was followed by a meeting with Bhishma K Agnihotri, India's ambassador at large for People of India Origin who was in Houston at the time.
Realising that the phenomenal cost (estimated at an astronomical Rs 560,000 crore or Rs 5.6 trillion) would probably put off most political parties from investing in it, Kannappan urged the Bush administration to support India when it sought World Bank aid for the project. He also pledged to use his technical expertise to ensure that the proposal report would be acceptable to the World Bank.
Interlinking the Ganga and the Cauvery, first mooted in 1972 by then irrigation minister Dr K L Rao, envisaged a 2,640-kilometer long Ganga Cauvery link. Then in 1977, the Morarji Desai government dusted off and revised the Dastur Plan, also known as the Garland Canal, first proposed by Captain Dinshaw J Dastur in the mid-1940s.
In July 1982, the National Water Development Authority was created to carry out surveys and prepare feasibility reports. In September 1987 the National Water Policy stated that its prime goal was to interlink national rivers. But nothing has been done till today.
Like all the other previous ruling parties, the National Democratic Alliance also, in its election manifesto, promised interlinking of rivers. The political resolution of the BJP National Council meeting at Nagpur (August 27-28, 2000) urged the government 'to consider a time bound programme to link the waters of the Ganga and the Cauvery.'
The NDA government finally came up with a revised National Water Policy in April 2002 and appointed a Special Task Force to monitor the project to interlink India's major rivers in December 2002.
Kannappan believes he could help get technical experts, both Indian and foreign, who could give realistic project timings.
In Texas, Suresh Prabhu will meet with the secretary of state, Texas, officials of the Lower Colorado River Authority, Ratnala & Bahl Inc, a major engineering firm, and Skand Tayal, consul general of India at Houston. This was possible after Kannappan spoke to Texas Governor Rick Perry. "He arranged for the secretary of state to meet with Suresh Prabhu at 10 am on June 26th in the State Capitol, Austin, to know how Texas would be of assistance for the linking of rivers project in India," Kannappan told rediff.com
Prabhu's meeting with officials of the Lower Colorado River Authority is important, for Texas has the long Colorado river running through the state before it flows into the sea. There is an Upper, Middle and Lower Colorado River Authority in Texas managed by the Texas government for water usage and distribution. Texas also has an International Treaty with Mexico for sharing the water of the Colorado and River Granty which run between Texas and Mexico.
There are legal documentation models for an international treaty and also a model to depict how effectively river water can be shared and used. According to Kannappan, there are a lot of new advanced technologies available in Texas like oil drilling, rock drilling, etc.
Ratnala & Bahl Inc would make arrangements for Prabhu to see the Colorado River Authority.
Asked if he expected Prabhu's visit to be fruitful, Kannappan replied: "I do not want to set high expectations. We will do our best for his visit to be fruitful. During his visit, he will have an opportunity to see and hear about large water resources projects done by major American companies. The size of these past projects is huge. The presentations on June 25th in Houston will give the scope, successes and lessons learnt in these large projects."
Consul General Tayal has arranged a meeting of like-minded Indian Americans with Prabhu where he would present the current status of linking the rivers.
Prabhu will also meet Tom Reid, mayor of Pearland, Texas, and discuss how water districts work in municipalities in the US. "Cities such as Pasadena use Trinity river water pumped through a water transfer canal. He would get a good idea about how water resource projects are handled in Texas," Kannappan says.
Asked if he felt that the task force was going a bit slow, Kannappan replied, "Response from any democratic government for complex issues may come slow. Long perseverance is required for any one who wants to get involved."
Under the directive of the Supreme Court, all the links have to be completed by 2012. The Government of India has decided upon 30 links throughout the country. The feasibility study of 6 links has already been completed. The task force will start either one link or all 6 links depending on the availability of funds. It was only after the first phase is finished that the feasibility study for the other 24 links will be taken up.
"If the Government of India assigns a link to us today, we will start the necessary work tomorrow. Water will flow in that link in record time. Rajan Radhakrishnan from Houston will help in arranging for necessary funds to start the work. I have assurance of assistance from Congressmen from Houston that they will help linking of the rivers project through USAID and the World Bank," Kannappan said.
He plans to ask to work on a specific link such as Krishna to Cauvery at the feasibility study level. "I hope to get the support of the government of Tamil Nadu. In Andhra Pradesh, Rao Ratanala would work on the link from the Godavari to the Krishna for which feasibility study is already completed."
Shobha Warrier | June 25, 2003 20:18 IST
Three weeks ago, I attended an informal lecture in the Washington DC area by Sockalingam Kannappan, the Texas engineer widely reported to be spearheading NRI participation in the effort to interlink the major rivers of India. Mr Kannappan was in presence at the invitation of a local Tamil organisation; in a semi-cultural atmosphere there was considerable time to listen to him advocate the interlinking project, and to ask several questions. Among others in the audience was the technocrat Dr S Kalyanaraman, a former executive of the Asian Development Bank whose more recent advocacy has focused on reviving the mythical Saraswati river and cleaning up the Coovam, Chennai's infamous river of sewage.
Mr Kannappan is, by his own plain admission, new to the business of linking rivers, and his straightforward presentation reflecte! d this. People in Indian cities are desperate for water security; in some places water costs more than milk; it rains a lot more than necessary in some regions and not enough in others; much of the rain in the western ghats simply vanishes into the Arabian Sea without being put to any significant use. Interlinked rivers merely connect these dots with pipes and canals that stretch from the places with the greatest abundance to the places with the greatest need, pardon my Marx.
And so we get to 30 links, 14 in the Himalayan component, and 16 in peninsular India. Along with water, we would reap an enormous bounty in hydroelectric power as well from these links. Pre-feasibility reports on all of these have been compiled, and in six cases, even feasibility reports are now available. Yes, there are obstacles. Gravity isn't a great friend to those who would divert rivers over hills, and politicians in various states are even less friendly to poaching of 'their' water by othe! r states. But these, Mr Kannappan insisted, could be overcome. Indeed, they must be overcome, for India's water security -- and accompanying hopes of prosperity -- depend on this critical development. Other nations have made similar efforts, even if not on this scale, and we must learn from their successes.
As for himself, he claimed no skill at judging the scientific merit of the task, or its financial and other costs; those he would leave to others. He wasn't unmindful of the social damages, but he skipped over them quickly. Sub-committees for Finance, Management, and the Acquisition and Control of Forest land have been created and their heads identified. A fourth committee head would also be appointed to serve Displaced Persons, but this individual was yet to be named. Some in the audience winced at this familiar pattern, but Mr Kannappan did not seem troubled by it. He insisted that the money for all displacement costs would be included in the planning stages itself.
In sum, then, he merely saw himself as cheerleader for a purpose whose time has come. Unvarnished by personal interest or political scheming, he would simply argue the case for water security. He had witnessed the people's despair at water shortages, and resolved that India's destiny cannot be throttled by years without this elementary security. The more he could bring citizens and friends of India to accept the wisdom of this project, the better, and that was all it would be. A friend in the audience later told me "he really has a good heart. He's the sort of man to whom God would have appeared in his dream to say 'Kannappan, this you must do'."
Perhaps. But the costs are real enough, and any meaningful defence of the project must address these. Since Mr Kannappan wasn't offering any, it was just as well that an ally was available. Taking his cue from the speaker, Dr Kalayanaraman stepped up to join him at the front of the room.
One doesn't l! ast decades as a bureaucrat without cultivating the appearance of assurance, and the former ADB executive didn't disappoint. Unfortunately, he also left many in the audience feeling a little uneasy. The money was no object, he said, pointing out that spread over many years the costs were small in comparison to the government's annual expenditure. He was enthusiastic about Mr Suresh Prabhu's helmsmanship of the whole affair -- the former Cabinet minister is the chairman of the task force created to oversee the project -- and seemed unmindful that the Shiv Sainik might not survive another 18 months of favour in New Delhi. "Mr Prabhu is a man of integrity, a Saraswat," he said pointedly, equating the two comfortably; political correctness hasn't reached this old-school patriot yet.
As for the many Adivasis and others who would be displaced by the grand scheme, Dr Kalyanaraman believed 'some would have to pay a price so that many might gain'. A mixture of outrage and anger g! reeted this assertion, and even those inclined to support the scheme were a little aghast. He changed tack swiftly; "there won't be many displaced, maybe a few hundred thousand at most." A few hundred thousand lives. How easily one imagines their dispossession from all they have ever known.
Questions were plentiful, and often suggested a great divide between enthusiasts and skeptics among the listeners. Those who have closely followed the travails in the Narmada valley or in Tehri aren't as readily accepting of the government's good intentions. They have seen promises broken, governments that lie in court without fear of judicial censure, and endured physical and mental harassment. A few others in the room had worked on large projects themselves, mostly as engineers, I believe; a couple of them nodded regularly in agreement with the speakers.
My own questions were limited to two. First, given the history of infrastructure projects in India -- the enormous displaceme! nt costs usually borne by the poor, the unfulfilled promises of compensation to the dispossessed, the incomplete planning, cost overruns, etc. -- why must we believe that this program, greatly larger than anything else built by the nation, will not be similarly egregious? After all, if we are to learn from the technical expertise and socio-economic experiences of faraway nations, shouldn't we also be learning from some examples of our own?
To this, Mr Kannappan's answer was perplexing. In his view the combination of political leadership we now have -- Mr Vajpayee's backing, Mr Kalam's endorsement, and Mr Suresh Prabhu's skills as chairman of the task force heading the project -- along with the personal integrity of these individuals is a compelling reason to think this project will not repeat the gross injustices of past programs. To my reasoning, though, that seems a powerful argument against the project; a $120 billion program linked closely to the political fortune! s of a party that has won 1 of the last 10 state elections seems a stretch, especially considering the years -- possibly decades -- it will take to bring this to completion.A noticeable thread in Mr Kannappan's portrayal is that NRIs can actively support this process, and some in the audience were keen to understand how. To this, he responded first that high-resolution satellite topographic data that would be necessary to create Geographic Information Systems could be obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and that the Indian community's efforts at securing this would be invaluable. This prompted my other question, a professional curiosity. Who, in particular, is engaged in such science? Perhaps I can speak with such persons at NASA and sate my interest in the GIS applications of remote sensing technologies.
Mr Kannappan didn't know the answer right away, but in any event it seems unlikely that identifying such persons would constitute 'NRI involvement.' After all, much of this data is archived on various Internet servers, and is quite freely available, and even if some assistance w! ere required in obtaining these, that would require no more than a few individuals. Surely, his interest in promoting this in the NRI community extended beyond such a minor matter?
Here, we arrived at a point of divergence between Mr Kannappan and Dr Kalyanaraman. The good technocrat is of the old school, that still believes in a self-assured India that can design and implement schemes borne of the grandest imagination. He is confident that every skill needed for the job is easily found within India. Even the cost -- $120 billion -- isn't a significant strain on the treasury, and perhaps some of the money will be found in private industry. Mr Kannappan seemed less certain of India's self-reliance, and shook his head repeatedly. I wondered if the pipeline engineer in him sensed an economic opportunity in the form of construction contracts. Perhaps not. Perhaps he sought only to build a constituency for the project in this country.
There was one last question for ! Dr Kalyanaraman. Perhaps because he presented himself as a believer while Sam Kannappan was more the preacher, one sensed that he would be more sensitive to the concerns raised. "Do you not see, Dr Kalyanaraman, that the political process will simply accept your endorsement while the arguments focus on whether this scheme is necessary, but will simply abandon your ideas once it is underway?" The technocrat himself is wary of this possibility, perhaps from experience, but not deterred. "Civil society groups must ensure that construction contracts are left to companies, but actual water management is the responsibility of local communities themselves," he offered hopefully. By his normally forceful standards, he sounded feeble; his faith in the likelihood of that outcome appeared shaky.
A little more than a week after the evening with Sam Kannappan, I encountered an entirely different vision of water security, this time in the voice of Nafisaben Barot.
In every imaginable way, Nafisaben is the antithesis of those who dream of transporting the Brahmaputra to Chhattisgarh. Unlike Mr Kannappan, she didn't begin by speaking of water or rivers; instead she spoke of communities, of gender-justice and women's empowerment, of freedom from moneylenders and government bureaucracies, of sanitation and health. Water security, she pointed out, is more than the mere technologies -- large or small -- that limit evaporation and contamination. Water must be primarily the community's property to manage for the public good, and the management of this precious resource must revolve around people's lives.
For two decades now, Nafisaben has led Utthan, a Gujarat-based non-profit organisation at the forefront of finding water security. In her world of vulnerable communities -- and especially their women -- water doesn't arrive by diktat over a government-funded pipeline. That drea! m was quickly defeated by memories of villagers scuffling over drops of water from pipes that fill underground tanks for 15 minutes a day, and standing guard over precious viradas -- pits in dry ponds that can yield two pots of water after a night-long vigil. Instead, her communities' water arrives ready-to-drink from the skies above and from the people's wisdom; all she must do is respect these and turn them to the fulfillment of the dreams they represent in entire communities.
Gujarat is dotted with evidence of Utthan's success. Beginning with Ahmedabad -- which now has a water self-reliance movement -- and then in Panchmahal, Mehsana, and along the shifting coasts of Bhavnagar and in Amreli, Utthan has facilitated the installation of rooftop water harvesting systems that feed into family-size storage tanks, replenished ground water and aquifers, and lined community storage ponds with plastic sheeting that prevents saline intrusions.
The remarkable thing ! is that Utthan's ideas for obtaining water security aren't radically activist or anti-government. In fact, for decades together, nearly every meaningful government document on the issue reads like a page from Utthan's manual. Repeatedly since the late 1970s, government policy has stressed decentralisation and community-specific initiatives, beating the drum of local ownership and control. The trouble has always been that reality hasn't squared with this policy; the government has failed to devolve power to local communities so that they may decide, plan, implement, maintain, and manage the use of their resource.
The bureaucracy is wedded to development paradigms that include a great role for itself, often with subversive intent. Nafisaben remembers a World Bank-funded pipeline built to deliver water to the Bhal region of Ahmedabad district's Dhandhuka taluka, but pilferage and other problems -- irregular electricity, unreliable ground water, etc -- led to the water being di! verted away long before its intended terminus. The scheme, however, included a catch -- as a condition of the loan, the bank had insisted that users pay a fee for the water. Since the water wasn't being delivered, the government couldn't possibly collect any such fees. Nonetheless, the bank's funds were alluring to the administration; so for months together the government simply made up payments on behalf of users, in effect paying to borrow from the bank!!
Ms Barot doesn't have much faith in grand schemes. Her experience, she says, has been that those things don't work, for reasons that are quite plain. Without proper enforcement, pilferage is common. Borewells deplete ground water and lower the water table, forcing increasingly more and deeper bores to be dug; with increasing depth the likelihood of toxins in the water is greater as well. The planners behind these programs have little understanding of rivers; they have built few structures for storage, she says. They mere! ly imagine that construction for transportation of water somehow equals progress. Their ideas do not address underlying social and economic barriers or questions of sustainability, they concern themselves with water as though it exists separate from the lives of communities that depend on it.
Not so in 'her' villages; there entire communities band together, often contributing their own labour to these efforts, and take pride in their ownership of the precious resource and its management for the public good. In this vision, where water isn't a saleable commodity but a social good, water security alone isn't the measure of success; accompanying improvements in awareness, women's rights, equity, and accountable governance are the true pillars of this progress.
Compared with the enormous complexities and socio-economic costs of large projects, such community programs for conservation appear more promising. Not only do they assure water security -- a claim many large! projects are unable to make -- they additionally build civil society itself in myriad ways. Yet, these examples are dismissed out of hand, often on incredible grounds. Dr Kalyanaraman, for instance, insisted that such 'anecdotal' successes cannot be treated as useful pointers for a national effort. If Nafisaben had performed miracles in Cherapunji there would be some truth to this view; but in fact her fame -- as does that of Rajendra Singh in Rajasthan -- stems from efforts in deeply water-starved regions; surely success amid scarcity offers many lessons for other places.
Still, it is fair to ask if community-driven measures are adequate. Could it be that local water-harvesting, storage and management provide some measure of security, but large infrastructure projects are nonetheless necessary as well?
I posed this question to Nafisaben; indeed I tossed her an extreme version of it. "Can you imagine situations where, despite the success you have seen in local communi! ties, the grand designs are in fact useful?" She didn't hesitate. "In 95% of the villages," she said, "community-based harvesting, groundwater recharging, protective storage, and conservation will be sufficient. The techniques applied will depend on the local conditions, but a combination of appropriate methods can surely meet the local needs."
Reflecting on the two meetings, I am struck by the parallels and the contrast. If their earnestness for doing good is any indication, Sam Kannappan and Nafisaben Barot are both good folks, as is Dr Kalyanaraman; there is little sense in contesting their obvious affection for India. But the greatest of good intentions nonetheless permits much room for opposition, and this must be why they offer such opposite imaginations of Indian water security. Our role, as interested citizens who may be similarly hopeful about the future, is to select between these imaginations.
The choice itself mirrors the divided ground of these different approaches. On one side we find organisational finance, technical capabilities for large projects, uniformity of management, and great political will in the face of extreme opposition from already disadvantaged communities. On the other side, we find local control, diversity of water-security measures, and the aspirations of those same people, that they too might find the promised economic and social freedoms written into the Constitution of our nation 53 years ago.
It is in considering the clearly social language of the latter that the choice is plain. The public good must begin with the people, not be foisted upon them in ways they oppose or reject. And it is here that the best intentions of Dr Kalyanaraman or Mr Kannappan encounter their fatal flaw. For their answer to the crying need is a very limited one. It offers local communities a condescending hand down from high offices of planning and finance, all the while promising to deliver a leg up. It fully re! cognises needs that must be met through enterprise, but is subversive of the methods by which local communities ask that the demands be met. It offers them water, while they additionally seek the opportunity to own and manage it.
The assertion that interlinking is the only meaningful solution to India's problems seems a poor beginning, for it accepts the defeat of all else. To imagine that $120 billion is the inevitable price of assuring water security, we must first accept that we are incapable of cheaper measures, that our people possess no wisdom for management of water within communities, that they lack every element of self-government and must therefore be fed and watered from afar. That label we cannot -- and must not -- accept. Far too much of Nafisaben Barot's life, and that of other fantastic leaders in local water management, speaks against this concession.
Our aspirations cannot be for India, they must be for the Indian people. Our ideas cannot be separate! d from the society whose advancement we seek. In our self-images, we must see not a market for grand technologies, not a socially broken nation that finds ability in the Saraswat and denies the imaginations of ordinary citizens in our villages. Our glory lies elsewhere. We must see the nation through the eyes of those who have made small promises and delivered on them, those who seek progress with the people, not merely in their name. We must learn to rejoice in those who have built small check dams in little hamlets, turned simple plastic sheeting into life-sustaining filters, and caught the rain on the roofs of countless homes.Ashwin Mahesh
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> ATTACHMENT part 2 image/gif name=trans.gif > ATTACHMENT part 3 image/gif name=trans.gif
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
