IBRIS
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,696
- Reaction score
- -1
India going ahead with Tipai dam
- Thread starter BanglaBhoot
- Start date
Farakka to Tipaimukh
by Habib Siddiqui
IN RECENT days, Bangladesh seems to have woken up to the danger posed by construction of the Tipaimukh Dam in the neighbouring Manipur state of India. There are some in Bangladesh who have a habit of translating national issues of this kind into deplorable partisanship thereby fostering disunity when national unity is needed. In so doing they commit acts of treason.
Before delving into the Tipaimukh project, I would like to share some facts surrounding the Farakka Barrage. Although the construction of the Farakka Barrage was completed during the Mujib rule in 1974-5, the decision to build this dam can be traced back to 1951. In those days, hydroelectric dams were popular methods to generating electric power. India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan planned on building hundreds of hydropower dams from rivers that flowed down from the Himalayas. The Farakka dam was built to divert water from the Ganges River into the Hooghly River during the dry season (January to June), in order to flush out the accumulating silt which in the 1950s and 1960s was a problem at the major port of Kolkata on the Hooghly River. A series of negotiations between the Pakistani and Indian governments failed to persuade India into abandoning the Farakka project.
After Bangladesh’s independence, the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission met over 90 times to discuss the Farakka Barrage issue, but without any results. The Bangladesh team was headed by BM Abbas. In April 1975, Bangladesh agreed to a trial operation of the Farakka Barrage for a period of 41 days from April 21 to May 31, 1975 to divert 11,000-16,000cfs (cusecs) with the understanding that India will not operate feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges water. Bangladesh was assured of getting 40,000 cusecs during the dry season.
Unfortunately, soon after Sheikh Mujib’s assassination in August 15, 1975, taking advantage of the political change in Bangladesh, India violated the agreement (MoU) by cheating and diverting the full capacity of 40,000 cusecs unilaterally. The matter was brought to the attention of UN General Assembly, which on November 26, 1976 adopted a consensus statement directing the parties to arrive at a fair and expeditious settlement. On November 5, 1977 the Ganges Waters Agreement was signed, assuring 34,500 cusecs for Bangladesh. The five-year treaty expired in 1982 and after several shorter extensions lapsed entirely in 1989. The JRC statistics shows very clearly that Bangladesh did not get its due share during all those years (1977-91). There was no improvement of the situation during the first Khaleda Zia administration (1991-96) with average water share reduced to 10,000 to 12,000 cusecs, with one extreme event of only 9,000 cusecs, during the dry season.
After Sheikh Hasina was elected prime minister, she visited India and signed a treaty with her counterpart Deve Gowda on December 12, 1996. The treaty addressed the heart of the conflict: water allocation (35,000 cusecs) during the five months of the dry season (January-May). During the rest of the year, there is sufficient water that India can operate the Farakka diversion without creating problems for Bangladesh. The treaty stipulated that below a certain flow rate, India and Bangladesh will each share half of the water. Above a certain limit, Bangladesh will be guaranteed a certain minimum level, and if the water flow exceeds a given limit, India will withdraw a given amount, and the balance will be received by Bangladesh (which will be more than 50 per cent).
The statement of IK Gujral, external affairs minister, in Rajya Sabha on December 12, 1996 on the visit of prime minister of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to India and the signing of the treaty on the sharing of Ganges water at Farakka reads: ‘[D]uring the critical period within the lean season, i.e. from March 1 to May 10, India and Bangladesh each shall receive a guaranteed flow of 35,000 cusecs of water in an alternating sequence of three 10-day periods each. This is aimed at meeting the fundamental requirements of both our countries through a just and reasonable sharing of the burden of shortage. The Treaty also has the merit of being a long-term arrangement combined with scope for reviews at shorter intervals to study the impact of the sharing formula and to make needed adjustments. While the Treaty will be for 30 years and renewable on mutual consent, there is a provision of mandatory reviews at the end of 5 years and even earlier after 2 years with provisions for adjustments as required. Pending a fresh understanding after the review stage, Bangladesh would continue to receive 90 per cent of its share in accordance with the new formula. We would thus avoid a situation where there is no agreement on the sharing of the Ganga waters between India and Bangladesh… As the House would recall, we have already taken initiatives in the commercial sphere by extending tariff concessions to Bangladesh on a range of products of export interest to them. We propose to extend commercial credits of Rs. 1 billion to enhance trade relations further.’
In the light of the above facts, it is difficult to sustain accusations that the 1996 Treaty went against the interest of Bangladesh, becoming a fait accompli. I have never heard an intelligent person say that a treaty signed with the aim of getting fair and equitable share is worse than not having one. Was the 1977-treaty silly, too? More outrageous is the implied assertion by some that the AL government that had ruled only five years in the post-Mujib era of 34 years is solely to be blamed for all the maladies facing Bangladesh today, including the Tipaimukh Dam, soon to be constructed by India.
It is true though that India had not kept its side of the bargain since signing of the treaty. The Joint River Commission statistics, as quoted by Syful Islam in the New Nation, March 9, shows that in 1999 Bangladesh got 1,033 cusecs of water at Teesta barrage point against its normal requirements of 10,000 cusecs of water. After JRC meeting in 2000 the water flow rose to 4,530 cusecs, in January 2001 it reduced to 1,406 cusecs, in January 2002 to 1,000 cusecs, in January 2003 to 1,100 cusecs, in November 2006 to 950 cusecs, in January 2007 to 525 cusecs and in January 2008 to 1,500 cusecs.
India’s behaviour mimics those of Israel in dishonouring every treaty that the rogue state had signed with the Palestinian Authority. Should not it be ashamed of its iniquity?
Let’s now look at the disastrous effect of the Farakka Barrage on Bangladesh. The immediate effects have been (1) reduction in agricultural products due to insufficient water for irrigation; (2) reduction in aquatic population; (3) river transportation problems during dry season; (4) increased salinity threatening crops, animal life drinking water, and industrial activities in southwest Bangladesh. The long-term effects, which are already being felt, include: (a) one fourth of the fertile agricultural land will become wasteland due to a shortage of water; (b) 30 million lives are affected through environmental and economical ruin; (c) an estimated annual economic loss of over half a billion dollars in agricultural, fisheries, navigation and industries; (d) frequent flooding due to environmental imbalance and changes in the natural flow of the Ganges. A BSS report of 2004 stated that over 80 rivers of the country dried up during last three decades due to the construction of the Farakka barrage on the Indian side of the river Ganges.
Bridge and Husain, researchers in Kansas, USA, have identified Farakka as the root cause behind arsenic poisoning with groundwater in Bangladesh and West Bengal State of India.
As to its impact in India, the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People report (November 1999) to the World Commission on Dams is quite revealing. It says, ‘Farakka Barrage Project taken up for the resuscitation of the navigational status of the Port of Calcutta has resulted in massive devastation in Malda on its upstream and Murshidabad on its downstream in West Bengal. Huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and increasing tendency of bank failure are some of its impacts. Erosion has swept away large areas of these two districts causing large scale population displacement, border disputes with Bihar and Bangladesh, pauperisation and marginalisation of the rural communities living by the river and creation of neo-refugees on the chars.’
So, it is clear that even the supposed beneficiary – the state of West Bengal – did not benefit from the project. Farakka Barrage has rightly been termed by some environmentalists as the greatest man-made eco-disaster of our time. If we had imagined Farakka was the last of such criminal calamities imposed on Bangladesh, we are wrong.
Syful Islam mentions a study conducted by the ‘International Rivers’, a US-based NGO that protects rivers and defends the rights of communities, which revealed that India had already built 74 dams, Nepal 15, Pakistan 6 and Bhutan 5 in the Himalayan region in the recent years. It also found that 37 Indian, 7 Pakistani and 2 Nepalese dams were under construction in that area. The study also identified that India had planned to build 318 dams, Nepal 37, Pakistan 35 and Bhutan 16 to add over 1,50,000MW of additional electricity capacity in the next 20 years. With 4,300 large dams already constructed and many more in the pipeline, India is one of the world’s most prolific dam-builders. India is committed to building more than 100 dams in eight states of the north-east corner alone.
If these numbers are true, it is important that the current government issues a white paper disclosing actions taken, if any, by past and present governments to stop India from such projects that are going to be built on international rivers harming Bangladesh.
Let’s now look at Tipaimukh. Manipur needs about 140MW of power to fulfil the unrestricted demand at the peak hours (1700 hrs to 2200 hrs). The total availability of power from all the central sector plants located in Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura comes to around 105MW. The Tipaimukh Dam plan, built on the river Barak, which bifurcates into two streams as it enters Bangladesh as the rivers Surma and Kushiara, has been on the drawing board for nearly 40 years. According to the implementing agency, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, this 390-metre-long, 163-metre-high dam would have an installed capacity of 1,500MW. As a multipurpose project, the dam also aims at flood moderation, improving navigation, irrigation and aquaculture in the region. Efforts were made in the past to get the World Bank or JBIC (a Japanese development bank) to back the project, but their involvement is still elusive. It is costing India Rs 6,800 crore — an escalation from the earlier estimated expenditure of Rs 5,163 crore. The foundation stone of the Tipaimukh project was laid by India’s union minister for industries and Cachar’s representative in the Lok Sabha, Sontosh Mohan Dev, along with other central ministers, on December 16, 2006. According to a NEEPCO source there, the work in January of 2007 mainly dealt with underground drilling at the reservoir site of the project. The Brahmaputra Board, a wing of the union water resources ministry, drilled those sites in 1997.
The proposed dam is unpopular in the Manipur state where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions. The Indian government’s decision to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in north-east India is not only arrogant but also criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced and thereby worsening Bangladesh’s overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighbouring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farakka Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them.
Our experience in the past 50 years has also taught us that humanity has brought more harm than good by challenging the natural course of rivers. Manmade systems like hydroelectric dams have failed to wipe out famine and hunger. More people have become poor than rich, which often time is concentrated amongst the very few that are involved with construction project. As Arundhati Roy has once said about dams, ‘They’re a guaranteed way of taking a farmer’s wisdom away from him. They’re a brazen means of taking water, land and irrigation away from the poor and gifting it to the rich. Their reservoirs displace huge populations of people, leaving them homeless and destitute. Ecologically, they’re in the doghouse. They lay the earth to waste. They cause floods, water-logging, salinity, they spread disease. There is mounting evidence that links Big Dams to earthquakes.’
What really concerned this writer the most is the stupidity of the Indian government’s decision to go ahead with hydroelectric dams to meet its electric demand. This decision seems too short-sighted, too irresponsible, and can only antagonise people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner it would better serve the interest of its people by choosing the nuclear alternative. India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India. It is inconceivable that it cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet its energy demand.
Again, I want to know: what did the previous administrations in Bangladesh do about this dam? How is the new government planning to deal with this issue? What can conscientious human beings of our planet do to stop India from building dams that kill people?
As hinted earlier, the very people targeted for drawing the benefits of the Tipaimukh dam living in the Manipur State had long been fighting a losing battle to stop this project. It is highly unlikely that demonstrations and protests inside Bangladesh would push India to abandon the project now, especially after spending hundreds of crores of rupees in front end loading activities.
While we are critical of Indian government’s decision to construct dams that produce devastating results affecting tens of millions of people, we have to be self-critical of our own failure to bring world attention to the gargantuan harm that India’s Farakka has already brought upon Bangladesh. If we had succeeded in that endeavour, India today wouldn’t be building the Tipaimukh dam. Whether we like it or not, we must realise that self-interest rules the day. In our world, there are no permanent friends or enemies. We are continuously reminded that what is permanent is self-interest and that has to be pursued vigorously. That says a lot about moral bankruptcy of a world that we live in and share with our neighbours in which might is increasingly becoming right, and the powerless has no effective means to fight against powerful enemies and nations that prey upon them.
At this stage, what actions and programmes are meaningful for Bangladesh? Can India be persuaded to abandon dam projects on international rivers in favour of alternative options for energy need? Given India’s long history of dishonouring its agreements on Farakka with Bangladesh, can it be trusted for keeping any new promise? Are the UN and/or the ICJ only options Bangladesh has to redress its grievances?
Editorial
by Habib Siddiqui
IN RECENT days, Bangladesh seems to have woken up to the danger posed by construction of the Tipaimukh Dam in the neighbouring Manipur state of India. There are some in Bangladesh who have a habit of translating national issues of this kind into deplorable partisanship thereby fostering disunity when national unity is needed. In so doing they commit acts of treason.
Before delving into the Tipaimukh project, I would like to share some facts surrounding the Farakka Barrage. Although the construction of the Farakka Barrage was completed during the Mujib rule in 1974-5, the decision to build this dam can be traced back to 1951. In those days, hydroelectric dams were popular methods to generating electric power. India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan planned on building hundreds of hydropower dams from rivers that flowed down from the Himalayas. The Farakka dam was built to divert water from the Ganges River into the Hooghly River during the dry season (January to June), in order to flush out the accumulating silt which in the 1950s and 1960s was a problem at the major port of Kolkata on the Hooghly River. A series of negotiations between the Pakistani and Indian governments failed to persuade India into abandoning the Farakka project.
After Bangladesh’s independence, the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission met over 90 times to discuss the Farakka Barrage issue, but without any results. The Bangladesh team was headed by BM Abbas. In April 1975, Bangladesh agreed to a trial operation of the Farakka Barrage for a period of 41 days from April 21 to May 31, 1975 to divert 11,000-16,000cfs (cusecs) with the understanding that India will not operate feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges water. Bangladesh was assured of getting 40,000 cusecs during the dry season.
Unfortunately, soon after Sheikh Mujib’s assassination in August 15, 1975, taking advantage of the political change in Bangladesh, India violated the agreement (MoU) by cheating and diverting the full capacity of 40,000 cusecs unilaterally. The matter was brought to the attention of UN General Assembly, which on November 26, 1976 adopted a consensus statement directing the parties to arrive at a fair and expeditious settlement. On November 5, 1977 the Ganges Waters Agreement was signed, assuring 34,500 cusecs for Bangladesh. The five-year treaty expired in 1982 and after several shorter extensions lapsed entirely in 1989. The JRC statistics shows very clearly that Bangladesh did not get its due share during all those years (1977-91). There was no improvement of the situation during the first Khaleda Zia administration (1991-96) with average water share reduced to 10,000 to 12,000 cusecs, with one extreme event of only 9,000 cusecs, during the dry season.
After Sheikh Hasina was elected prime minister, she visited India and signed a treaty with her counterpart Deve Gowda on December 12, 1996. The treaty addressed the heart of the conflict: water allocation (35,000 cusecs) during the five months of the dry season (January-May). During the rest of the year, there is sufficient water that India can operate the Farakka diversion without creating problems for Bangladesh. The treaty stipulated that below a certain flow rate, India and Bangladesh will each share half of the water. Above a certain limit, Bangladesh will be guaranteed a certain minimum level, and if the water flow exceeds a given limit, India will withdraw a given amount, and the balance will be received by Bangladesh (which will be more than 50 per cent).
The statement of IK Gujral, external affairs minister, in Rajya Sabha on December 12, 1996 on the visit of prime minister of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to India and the signing of the treaty on the sharing of Ganges water at Farakka reads: ‘[D]uring the critical period within the lean season, i.e. from March 1 to May 10, India and Bangladesh each shall receive a guaranteed flow of 35,000 cusecs of water in an alternating sequence of three 10-day periods each. This is aimed at meeting the fundamental requirements of both our countries through a just and reasonable sharing of the burden of shortage. The Treaty also has the merit of being a long-term arrangement combined with scope for reviews at shorter intervals to study the impact of the sharing formula and to make needed adjustments. While the Treaty will be for 30 years and renewable on mutual consent, there is a provision of mandatory reviews at the end of 5 years and even earlier after 2 years with provisions for adjustments as required. Pending a fresh understanding after the review stage, Bangladesh would continue to receive 90 per cent of its share in accordance with the new formula. We would thus avoid a situation where there is no agreement on the sharing of the Ganga waters between India and Bangladesh… As the House would recall, we have already taken initiatives in the commercial sphere by extending tariff concessions to Bangladesh on a range of products of export interest to them. We propose to extend commercial credits of Rs. 1 billion to enhance trade relations further.’
In the light of the above facts, it is difficult to sustain accusations that the 1996 Treaty went against the interest of Bangladesh, becoming a fait accompli. I have never heard an intelligent person say that a treaty signed with the aim of getting fair and equitable share is worse than not having one. Was the 1977-treaty silly, too? More outrageous is the implied assertion by some that the AL government that had ruled only five years in the post-Mujib era of 34 years is solely to be blamed for all the maladies facing Bangladesh today, including the Tipaimukh Dam, soon to be constructed by India.
It is true though that India had not kept its side of the bargain since signing of the treaty. The Joint River Commission statistics, as quoted by Syful Islam in the New Nation, March 9, shows that in 1999 Bangladesh got 1,033 cusecs of water at Teesta barrage point against its normal requirements of 10,000 cusecs of water. After JRC meeting in 2000 the water flow rose to 4,530 cusecs, in January 2001 it reduced to 1,406 cusecs, in January 2002 to 1,000 cusecs, in January 2003 to 1,100 cusecs, in November 2006 to 950 cusecs, in January 2007 to 525 cusecs and in January 2008 to 1,500 cusecs.
India’s behaviour mimics those of Israel in dishonouring every treaty that the rogue state had signed with the Palestinian Authority. Should not it be ashamed of its iniquity?
Let’s now look at the disastrous effect of the Farakka Barrage on Bangladesh. The immediate effects have been (1) reduction in agricultural products due to insufficient water for irrigation; (2) reduction in aquatic population; (3) river transportation problems during dry season; (4) increased salinity threatening crops, animal life drinking water, and industrial activities in southwest Bangladesh. The long-term effects, which are already being felt, include: (a) one fourth of the fertile agricultural land will become wasteland due to a shortage of water; (b) 30 million lives are affected through environmental and economical ruin; (c) an estimated annual economic loss of over half a billion dollars in agricultural, fisheries, navigation and industries; (d) frequent flooding due to environmental imbalance and changes in the natural flow of the Ganges. A BSS report of 2004 stated that over 80 rivers of the country dried up during last three decades due to the construction of the Farakka barrage on the Indian side of the river Ganges.
Bridge and Husain, researchers in Kansas, USA, have identified Farakka as the root cause behind arsenic poisoning with groundwater in Bangladesh and West Bengal State of India.
As to its impact in India, the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People report (November 1999) to the World Commission on Dams is quite revealing. It says, ‘Farakka Barrage Project taken up for the resuscitation of the navigational status of the Port of Calcutta has resulted in massive devastation in Malda on its upstream and Murshidabad on its downstream in West Bengal. Huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and increasing tendency of bank failure are some of its impacts. Erosion has swept away large areas of these two districts causing large scale population displacement, border disputes with Bihar and Bangladesh, pauperisation and marginalisation of the rural communities living by the river and creation of neo-refugees on the chars.’
So, it is clear that even the supposed beneficiary – the state of West Bengal – did not benefit from the project. Farakka Barrage has rightly been termed by some environmentalists as the greatest man-made eco-disaster of our time. If we had imagined Farakka was the last of such criminal calamities imposed on Bangladesh, we are wrong.
Syful Islam mentions a study conducted by the ‘International Rivers’, a US-based NGO that protects rivers and defends the rights of communities, which revealed that India had already built 74 dams, Nepal 15, Pakistan 6 and Bhutan 5 in the Himalayan region in the recent years. It also found that 37 Indian, 7 Pakistani and 2 Nepalese dams were under construction in that area. The study also identified that India had planned to build 318 dams, Nepal 37, Pakistan 35 and Bhutan 16 to add over 1,50,000MW of additional electricity capacity in the next 20 years. With 4,300 large dams already constructed and many more in the pipeline, India is one of the world’s most prolific dam-builders. India is committed to building more than 100 dams in eight states of the north-east corner alone.
If these numbers are true, it is important that the current government issues a white paper disclosing actions taken, if any, by past and present governments to stop India from such projects that are going to be built on international rivers harming Bangladesh.
Let’s now look at Tipaimukh. Manipur needs about 140MW of power to fulfil the unrestricted demand at the peak hours (1700 hrs to 2200 hrs). The total availability of power from all the central sector plants located in Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura comes to around 105MW. The Tipaimukh Dam plan, built on the river Barak, which bifurcates into two streams as it enters Bangladesh as the rivers Surma and Kushiara, has been on the drawing board for nearly 40 years. According to the implementing agency, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, this 390-metre-long, 163-metre-high dam would have an installed capacity of 1,500MW. As a multipurpose project, the dam also aims at flood moderation, improving navigation, irrigation and aquaculture in the region. Efforts were made in the past to get the World Bank or JBIC (a Japanese development bank) to back the project, but their involvement is still elusive. It is costing India Rs 6,800 crore — an escalation from the earlier estimated expenditure of Rs 5,163 crore. The foundation stone of the Tipaimukh project was laid by India’s union minister for industries and Cachar’s representative in the Lok Sabha, Sontosh Mohan Dev, along with other central ministers, on December 16, 2006. According to a NEEPCO source there, the work in January of 2007 mainly dealt with underground drilling at the reservoir site of the project. The Brahmaputra Board, a wing of the union water resources ministry, drilled those sites in 1997.
The proposed dam is unpopular in the Manipur state where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions. The Indian government’s decision to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in north-east India is not only arrogant but also criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced and thereby worsening Bangladesh’s overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighbouring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farakka Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them.
Our experience in the past 50 years has also taught us that humanity has brought more harm than good by challenging the natural course of rivers. Manmade systems like hydroelectric dams have failed to wipe out famine and hunger. More people have become poor than rich, which often time is concentrated amongst the very few that are involved with construction project. As Arundhati Roy has once said about dams, ‘They’re a guaranteed way of taking a farmer’s wisdom away from him. They’re a brazen means of taking water, land and irrigation away from the poor and gifting it to the rich. Their reservoirs displace huge populations of people, leaving them homeless and destitute. Ecologically, they’re in the doghouse. They lay the earth to waste. They cause floods, water-logging, salinity, they spread disease. There is mounting evidence that links Big Dams to earthquakes.’
What really concerned this writer the most is the stupidity of the Indian government’s decision to go ahead with hydroelectric dams to meet its electric demand. This decision seems too short-sighted, too irresponsible, and can only antagonise people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner it would better serve the interest of its people by choosing the nuclear alternative. India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India. It is inconceivable that it cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet its energy demand.
Again, I want to know: what did the previous administrations in Bangladesh do about this dam? How is the new government planning to deal with this issue? What can conscientious human beings of our planet do to stop India from building dams that kill people?
As hinted earlier, the very people targeted for drawing the benefits of the Tipaimukh dam living in the Manipur State had long been fighting a losing battle to stop this project. It is highly unlikely that demonstrations and protests inside Bangladesh would push India to abandon the project now, especially after spending hundreds of crores of rupees in front end loading activities.
While we are critical of Indian government’s decision to construct dams that produce devastating results affecting tens of millions of people, we have to be self-critical of our own failure to bring world attention to the gargantuan harm that India’s Farakka has already brought upon Bangladesh. If we had succeeded in that endeavour, India today wouldn’t be building the Tipaimukh dam. Whether we like it or not, we must realise that self-interest rules the day. In our world, there are no permanent friends or enemies. We are continuously reminded that what is permanent is self-interest and that has to be pursued vigorously. That says a lot about moral bankruptcy of a world that we live in and share with our neighbours in which might is increasingly becoming right, and the powerless has no effective means to fight against powerful enemies and nations that prey upon them.
At this stage, what actions and programmes are meaningful for Bangladesh? Can India be persuaded to abandon dam projects on international rivers in favour of alternative options for energy need? Given India’s long history of dishonouring its agreements on Farakka with Bangladesh, can it be trusted for keeping any new promise? Are the UN and/or the ICJ only options Bangladesh has to redress its grievances?
Editorial
Last edited:
IBRIS
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,696
- Reaction score
- -1
You are just ranting buddy. Every monsoon season unprecedented rainfall in the catchment lying between Ganga and Mahananda and the simulataneous drainage congestion due to the rise in HFL of Ganga and Mahananda; meandering Ganga River upstream of Farakka. Which means Farakka helps Bangladesh prepare for upcoming flood before it gets too late. Natural downstream cannot be flooded by Indians, It's done by NATURE my genious bangladeshi friend.
BanglaBhoot
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Then how does one explain that the three worst floods in the history of this region (East Pakistan/Bangladesh) happened after the building of Farrakka.
Tipaimukh dam, Fulertal barrage spell 'disaster' for Sylhet, say experts
Maruf Mallick
bdnews24.com environment correspondent
Dhaka, May 28 (bdnews24.com)?Farm output will fall and poverty will rise, spelling 'disaster' for the Sylhet region if India's proposed Tipaimukh dam and Fulertal barrage are built, maintain experts.
"The dam will cause water flow to slow down while the barrage will ensure their full control of water resources," former director general and chief engineer of Water Resources Planning Organisation,engineer Inamul Haque told bdnews24.com Thursday.
"The cultivation of early variety of boro in the northeast would be hampered," he said.
"So far as I know the Tipaimukh dam will be built 200 kms from the Amolshid border, at Zakingong, to construct a vast water reservoir for hydro-power generation."
"The water from three rivers?the Barak, Tipai and Irang?would be required to feed the water reservoir to cover an immense area," said Inamul.
"Besides, another barrage is to be built 100 kms off our border at Fulertal in India for irrigation purposes which would feed the waters through canals," Haq said.
Haq said downstream regions will experience two major impacts: firstly, with the decrease of water in December, the people who now grow early varieties of boro on the land which used to arise in the haor areas would no longer have this resource.
Secondly, the water flow of the river Surma will decrease significantly, he said.
IUCN resident director Dr.Ainun Nishat told bdnews24.com that the construction of Tipaimukh dam will reduce the the natural monsoon flood patterns of the area on which cultivation depends.
He said the construction of barrage at Fulertal on top of the Tipaimukh dam could seriously reduce the water flow during the dry season.
"The extent of drop in water flow depends on the volume of water withdrawn through the irrigation canals," he said.
"We could see the Surma and Kushiara rivers dry up completely during the dry season, he said
Anu Muhammad, professor of economics at Jahangirnagar University, told bdnews24.com the Tipaimukh dam and Fulertal barrage would spell "a great disaster."
"Arable land will decline and production of crops fall, leading to a rise in poverty," he said.
According to some reports, the proposed Tipaimukh dam across the river Barak in the Indian state Monipur will 162.5 metres high and 390metres long to create a reservoir by permanently submerging some 2.75 square kilometers of land.
India expects to generate around 1500 megawatt of hydropower from the project.
Tipaimukh dam, Fulertal barrage spell 'disaster' for Sylhet, say experts | | bdnews24.com
Maruf Mallick
bdnews24.com environment correspondent
Dhaka, May 28 (bdnews24.com)?Farm output will fall and poverty will rise, spelling 'disaster' for the Sylhet region if India's proposed Tipaimukh dam and Fulertal barrage are built, maintain experts.
"The dam will cause water flow to slow down while the barrage will ensure their full control of water resources," former director general and chief engineer of Water Resources Planning Organisation,engineer Inamul Haque told bdnews24.com Thursday.
"The cultivation of early variety of boro in the northeast would be hampered," he said.
"So far as I know the Tipaimukh dam will be built 200 kms from the Amolshid border, at Zakingong, to construct a vast water reservoir for hydro-power generation."
"The water from three rivers?the Barak, Tipai and Irang?would be required to feed the water reservoir to cover an immense area," said Inamul.
"Besides, another barrage is to be built 100 kms off our border at Fulertal in India for irrigation purposes which would feed the waters through canals," Haq said.
Haq said downstream regions will experience two major impacts: firstly, with the decrease of water in December, the people who now grow early varieties of boro on the land which used to arise in the haor areas would no longer have this resource.
Secondly, the water flow of the river Surma will decrease significantly, he said.
IUCN resident director Dr.Ainun Nishat told bdnews24.com that the construction of Tipaimukh dam will reduce the the natural monsoon flood patterns of the area on which cultivation depends.
He said the construction of barrage at Fulertal on top of the Tipaimukh dam could seriously reduce the water flow during the dry season.
"The extent of drop in water flow depends on the volume of water withdrawn through the irrigation canals," he said.
"We could see the Surma and Kushiara rivers dry up completely during the dry season, he said
Anu Muhammad, professor of economics at Jahangirnagar University, told bdnews24.com the Tipaimukh dam and Fulertal barrage would spell "a great disaster."
"Arable land will decline and production of crops fall, leading to a rise in poverty," he said.
According to some reports, the proposed Tipaimukh dam across the river Barak in the Indian state Monipur will 162.5 metres high and 390metres long to create a reservoir by permanently submerging some 2.75 square kilometers of land.
India expects to generate around 1500 megawatt of hydropower from the project.
Tipaimukh dam, Fulertal barrage spell 'disaster' for Sylhet, say experts | | bdnews24.com
IBRIS
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,696
- Reaction score
- -1
So,India is magically flooding bangladesh.
Havy flooding during the monsoon season, and around 20 per cent of the low-lying country is submerged annually. Mnsoon season is generated by an annual weather change in southern Asia that heats large areas of land mass. Because ocean regions remain much cooler, the temperature difference forces cool, moist air to rush inland, bringing with it torrential rains.
You can't control nature's fury.
leonblack08
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,072
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Kindly don't invent your own theory.
If it has been saving Bangladesh from floods,then how come the worst floods of the century (1988,1998,2004 etc.) occur?These were after the dam was built.
It is infact because of this dam,the situation worsens every year.When you guys let open the flood gates,the water comes rushing in above the danger level.Flooding low lands immediately.So how does this Farakka help,again?
As for drying effect,we have an entire thread dedicated to that.Go through that to find more than 100 tributaries of Padma is now dead.
IBRIS
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,696
- Reaction score
- -1
So,India is magically flooding bangladesh.
Havy flooding during the monsoon season, and around 20 per cent of the low-lying country is submerged annually. Mnsoon season is generated by an annual weather change in southern Asia that heats large areas of land mass. Because ocean regions remain much cooler, the temperature difference forces cool, moist air to rush inland, bringing with it torrential rains.
You can't control nature's fury.
Prometheus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,942
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
and I thought flood is main problem of Bangladesh................wats the treaty says(if any)..............are we allowed to store water????indian with farakka dam made Bangladesh part of river padma just patch of water. Hundreds of billions of dollors of worth of damage caused by india and live of and livelyhood of millions of Bangladeshis is destroyed. Bangladesh should make demand for reparation for indian destruction.
certainly some amount of water we can store if not all
So why does india obstruct natural flow of ganga during dry season??? Perhaps india can open another display in worldexpo - india -land of deception.
IBRIS
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,696
- Reaction score
- -1
All bangladeshi's look through this picture of map and tell me how does DAM as small as Farakka helps flood bangladesh. You can clearly see other bigger rivers that flow parallel to Farakka Dam's flow.
There are 53 other rivers that flow into bangladesh from India. 2 Dam's can't help flood bangladesh. Monsoon is the culprit, not Indians.
There are 53 other rivers that flow into bangladesh from India. 2 Dam's can't help flood bangladesh. Monsoon is the culprit, not Indians.
Bangladesh drying up as India withdrawing Ganges water
Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 1:56am
Bangladesh is getting drier every year due to India's unilateral withdrawal of water from the common river Ganges flowing upstream from India. The quantity of water down the Farakka point has been critically declining due to taking out of the Ganges water by upper riparian India through various canals by violating the water sharing agreement.
Over and above, there are other unresolved issues and irritants between India and Bangladesh, one of which is the long outstanding border issue. Bangladesh had long ago handed over its Berubari enclave to India but has been waiting for more than 34 years to get the Mujib-Indira Border Accord ratified by Indian parliament for the handover of Tin-Bigha corridor to Bangladesh.
But the irritant which remains singularly thorny since long between Dhaka and Delhi is the water sharing issue of the common rivers flowing from India to Bangladesh. The flow of the once-mighty river Ganges (Padma) has decreased alarmingly due to withdrawal of water at Farakka point in India, leading to drying up of at least 15 of its tributaries. It is now a mere memory that the fishermen living along the river Padma used to catch hilsa fish near Rajshahi city but� in last couple of decades waters has dried up giving rise to� sandy islands� on the dried bed of the Padma.
Unilateral withdrawal of the Ganges water during the dry months resulted in serious adverse effects in the south-western and western districts of Bangladesh, covering almost 20 per cent of country's area. It has adversely affected the environment, agriculture, industries, fisheries, navigation the river regime and salinity culminating in the surface and ground water.
The effects of this have been severe for Bangladesh where the salinity front have moved some 280 kilometers upstream northward from the coast in the south and the salinity level in surface water has increased almost six times. It was also evident that the Sundarbans, one of the world's largest mangrove forests, is being degraded due to increased salinity in the estuarine rivers.
Meanwhile, much to Bangladesh's agony, India is moving ahead with its plan of interlinking its Himalayan rivers with those in the peninsular region through 30 interlinking canal systems. Already, the project has raised controversy and debate. Interlinking rivers will directly hit Bangladesh because India's rivers pass through Bangladesh. Besides, the basis of the Ganges and Brahmaputra river systems are shared by Nepal and Bangladesh.
In India, the project has been criticised on environmental grounds. It is feared that implementation might cause vast forest tracts to be submerged, disturbing wildlife, displacing communities, affecting livelihood and transforming water quality and microclimatic conditions affecting human health.
To implement the project, India must enter into agreements with Nepal and Bangladesh, as these countries share the basins of the Ganges and Brahmaputra river systems. However, Bangladesh is seriously concerned as India plans to divert vast quantities of water from the Ganga and Brahmaputra rivers to India's southern states, directly threatening the livelihoods of millions of people in the country as well as its environment. These rivers are crucial sources of freshwater for the country.
Agriculture is the main mode of livelihood in Bangladesh where over 65 per cent of the population is dependent on farming. That is why the people's livelihood is inextricably linked to water. Bangladesh's water, both above and below the ground, provides a multitude of services to its population: water to drink, water for agricultural production, fishery and river transport. Water is Bangladesh's lifeline that is now under stress putting the nation in a bad situation.
The crisis began with the construction of Farakka Barrage on the Ganges in India at about 20 km upstream from Bangladesh border soon after her independence. The Farakka barrage was completed in 1974 for diverting Ganges water into the Hoogly river for the stated purpose of improving navigability� of Kolkata� port.
For the test run of the barrage, a water sharing agreement with India was made in 1975 for diverting 11,000 to 16,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) of water between April 21 and May 31, 1975 leaving about 44,000 cusecs for Bangladesh.
However, India started unilateral withdrawal of water upstream in 1976 without any agreement severely affecting Bangladesh in the dry season. Bangladesh had to take the issue to the United nations General Assembly and finally an agreement was concluded in 1977 for five years.
With the expiry of the first five-year agreement, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed in 1982 between Bangladesh and India on the sharing of Ganges water. After it expired in 1988, the countries failed to reach a new agreement and entered a period marked by disagreement. During this time, India continued unilateral diversion Ganges water through the Farakka Barrage. Finally on December 12, 1996, Bangladesh and India signed a treaty on sharing of Ganges water.
Negotiations on the sharing of Ganges water at Farakka started in 1960 at the time of the sharing of Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan. India decided to construct a barrage across the Ganges at Farakka in 1951 in order to divert water to Bhagirathi to maintain its navigability.
India's decision to start construction of Farakka Barrage in 1960 violated the international norms on infrastructure for the diversion of water on any international river. Construction of the 7363 feet long barrage -- designed for a maximum discharge of 27,00,000� cusecs and a head regulator for diversion capacity of 40,000 cusecs of flow -- was completed in 1974.
India then approached Bangladesh for a test operation of the Farakka Barrage and feeder canal. The then Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman agreed to India's proposal for the test operation of the barrage and the feeder canal. Initially in 1975, India was allowed to divert flows varying from 11,000 cusecs to 16,000 cusecs for a period of 41 days from April 21 to may 31 in 1975.
It was the understanding in 1975 that India would not operate the feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges water. However, India, in violation of the understanding, diverted the Ganges water in the upstream in 1976 and 1977.
The 1996 treaty established a new formula for sharing the Ganges water at Farakka in the dry season (January 1 to May 31). According to the agreement, two governments would immediately would sit for consultation to make adjustments on emergency basis in case of drastic fall of waters below 50,000 cusecs in any 10-day period. If the discharge is 70,000 cusecs or less, both the countries will share 50 per cent. In case of a flow between 70,000 and 75,000 cusecs, Bangladesh will receive 35,000 cusecs and when the flow is above 75,000 cusecs, India will receive 40, 000 cusecs and Bangladesh will receive the balance.
Article 11 of the agreement made it clear that agreements will be reviewed every five years and if no agreement can be reached or adjusted India will release at least 90 per cent of Bangladesh's share. However, the fault of the agreement was that no provision for international arbitration was spelled out in case of any dispute.
However, the recent statistics reveal that Bangladesh received less amount of water in each ten-day slot from January to March this year.
According to the agreement, Bangladesh was to get a share of 408,046 cusecs of water in eight slots during the period of January 01 to March 20 this year but got only 257,235 cusecs. Bangladesh was deprived by 150,811 cusecs of water during the period.
In this regard, a written protest from Bangladesh side was made through the Joint River Commission and also the mater was taken up at diplomatic level.
Meanwhile, the water level in the Padma is falling down by one meter on an average every March. It came down by 2.50 meters from January to mid-March.
In March 2000, the water level in Padma was at a height of 10.65 meters while it came down to 9.62 meters in March 2004 and at 9.05 in March 2007. The record shows that the level of water came down to a level of 8.99 meters by the end of the first week of March this year (2008). It was at 11.30 meters in December last.
Bangladesh water experts pointed out that India's claim for low discharge in the Ganges due to natural causes was not supported by facts as it was not maintaining the flow in the upper riparian on the basis of 40-years of average, as agreed in the water sharing treaty.
To maintain a steady flow in the upper riparian, Nepal could be involved for augmentation of the Ganges water, the experts suggested. But India is not sincere enough to involve Nepal in a tri-partite agreement in spite of Nepal's willingness to help resolve the crisis.
Whatever might be the water statistics and discord, the adverse impact, a slow-motion disaster, is hitting Bangladesh with little concern among the ruling regime. Unfortunately, Bangladesh under a non-elected Caretaker Government is active in working out a railway link as desired by India and also the facility to use Chittagong port keeping the Bangladesh demands pending over the years.
Bangladesh drying up as India withdrawing Ganges water | priyo.com
Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 1:56am
Bangladesh is getting drier every year due to India's unilateral withdrawal of water from the common river Ganges flowing upstream from India. The quantity of water down the Farakka point has been critically declining due to taking out of the Ganges water by upper riparian India through various canals by violating the water sharing agreement.
Over and above, there are other unresolved issues and irritants between India and Bangladesh, one of which is the long outstanding border issue. Bangladesh had long ago handed over its Berubari enclave to India but has been waiting for more than 34 years to get the Mujib-Indira Border Accord ratified by Indian parliament for the handover of Tin-Bigha corridor to Bangladesh.
But the irritant which remains singularly thorny since long between Dhaka and Delhi is the water sharing issue of the common rivers flowing from India to Bangladesh. The flow of the once-mighty river Ganges (Padma) has decreased alarmingly due to withdrawal of water at Farakka point in India, leading to drying up of at least 15 of its tributaries. It is now a mere memory that the fishermen living along the river Padma used to catch hilsa fish near Rajshahi city but� in last couple of decades waters has dried up giving rise to� sandy islands� on the dried bed of the Padma.
Unilateral withdrawal of the Ganges water during the dry months resulted in serious adverse effects in the south-western and western districts of Bangladesh, covering almost 20 per cent of country's area. It has adversely affected the environment, agriculture, industries, fisheries, navigation the river regime and salinity culminating in the surface and ground water.
The effects of this have been severe for Bangladesh where the salinity front have moved some 280 kilometers upstream northward from the coast in the south and the salinity level in surface water has increased almost six times. It was also evident that the Sundarbans, one of the world's largest mangrove forests, is being degraded due to increased salinity in the estuarine rivers.
Meanwhile, much to Bangladesh's agony, India is moving ahead with its plan of interlinking its Himalayan rivers with those in the peninsular region through 30 interlinking canal systems. Already, the project has raised controversy and debate. Interlinking rivers will directly hit Bangladesh because India's rivers pass through Bangladesh. Besides, the basis of the Ganges and Brahmaputra river systems are shared by Nepal and Bangladesh.
In India, the project has been criticised on environmental grounds. It is feared that implementation might cause vast forest tracts to be submerged, disturbing wildlife, displacing communities, affecting livelihood and transforming water quality and microclimatic conditions affecting human health.
To implement the project, India must enter into agreements with Nepal and Bangladesh, as these countries share the basins of the Ganges and Brahmaputra river systems. However, Bangladesh is seriously concerned as India plans to divert vast quantities of water from the Ganga and Brahmaputra rivers to India's southern states, directly threatening the livelihoods of millions of people in the country as well as its environment. These rivers are crucial sources of freshwater for the country.
Agriculture is the main mode of livelihood in Bangladesh where over 65 per cent of the population is dependent on farming. That is why the people's livelihood is inextricably linked to water. Bangladesh's water, both above and below the ground, provides a multitude of services to its population: water to drink, water for agricultural production, fishery and river transport. Water is Bangladesh's lifeline that is now under stress putting the nation in a bad situation.
The crisis began with the construction of Farakka Barrage on the Ganges in India at about 20 km upstream from Bangladesh border soon after her independence. The Farakka barrage was completed in 1974 for diverting Ganges water into the Hoogly river for the stated purpose of improving navigability� of Kolkata� port.
For the test run of the barrage, a water sharing agreement with India was made in 1975 for diverting 11,000 to 16,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) of water between April 21 and May 31, 1975 leaving about 44,000 cusecs for Bangladesh.
However, India started unilateral withdrawal of water upstream in 1976 without any agreement severely affecting Bangladesh in the dry season. Bangladesh had to take the issue to the United nations General Assembly and finally an agreement was concluded in 1977 for five years.
With the expiry of the first five-year agreement, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed in 1982 between Bangladesh and India on the sharing of Ganges water. After it expired in 1988, the countries failed to reach a new agreement and entered a period marked by disagreement. During this time, India continued unilateral diversion Ganges water through the Farakka Barrage. Finally on December 12, 1996, Bangladesh and India signed a treaty on sharing of Ganges water.
Negotiations on the sharing of Ganges water at Farakka started in 1960 at the time of the sharing of Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan. India decided to construct a barrage across the Ganges at Farakka in 1951 in order to divert water to Bhagirathi to maintain its navigability.
India's decision to start construction of Farakka Barrage in 1960 violated the international norms on infrastructure for the diversion of water on any international river. Construction of the 7363 feet long barrage -- designed for a maximum discharge of 27,00,000� cusecs and a head regulator for diversion capacity of 40,000 cusecs of flow -- was completed in 1974.
India then approached Bangladesh for a test operation of the Farakka Barrage and feeder canal. The then Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman agreed to India's proposal for the test operation of the barrage and the feeder canal. Initially in 1975, India was allowed to divert flows varying from 11,000 cusecs to 16,000 cusecs for a period of 41 days from April 21 to may 31 in 1975.
It was the understanding in 1975 that India would not operate the feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges water. However, India, in violation of the understanding, diverted the Ganges water in the upstream in 1976 and 1977.
The 1996 treaty established a new formula for sharing the Ganges water at Farakka in the dry season (January 1 to May 31). According to the agreement, two governments would immediately would sit for consultation to make adjustments on emergency basis in case of drastic fall of waters below 50,000 cusecs in any 10-day period. If the discharge is 70,000 cusecs or less, both the countries will share 50 per cent. In case of a flow between 70,000 and 75,000 cusecs, Bangladesh will receive 35,000 cusecs and when the flow is above 75,000 cusecs, India will receive 40, 000 cusecs and Bangladesh will receive the balance.
Article 11 of the agreement made it clear that agreements will be reviewed every five years and if no agreement can be reached or adjusted India will release at least 90 per cent of Bangladesh's share. However, the fault of the agreement was that no provision for international arbitration was spelled out in case of any dispute.
However, the recent statistics reveal that Bangladesh received less amount of water in each ten-day slot from January to March this year.
According to the agreement, Bangladesh was to get a share of 408,046 cusecs of water in eight slots during the period of January 01 to March 20 this year but got only 257,235 cusecs. Bangladesh was deprived by 150,811 cusecs of water during the period.
In this regard, a written protest from Bangladesh side was made through the Joint River Commission and also the mater was taken up at diplomatic level.
Meanwhile, the water level in the Padma is falling down by one meter on an average every March. It came down by 2.50 meters from January to mid-March.
In March 2000, the water level in Padma was at a height of 10.65 meters while it came down to 9.62 meters in March 2004 and at 9.05 in March 2007. The record shows that the level of water came down to a level of 8.99 meters by the end of the first week of March this year (2008). It was at 11.30 meters in December last.
Bangladesh water experts pointed out that India's claim for low discharge in the Ganges due to natural causes was not supported by facts as it was not maintaining the flow in the upper riparian on the basis of 40-years of average, as agreed in the water sharing treaty.
To maintain a steady flow in the upper riparian, Nepal could be involved for augmentation of the Ganges water, the experts suggested. But India is not sincere enough to involve Nepal in a tri-partite agreement in spite of Nepal's willingness to help resolve the crisis.
Whatever might be the water statistics and discord, the adverse impact, a slow-motion disaster, is hitting Bangladesh with little concern among the ruling regime. Unfortunately, Bangladesh under a non-elected Caretaker Government is active in working out a railway link as desired by India and also the facility to use Chittagong port keeping the Bangladesh demands pending over the years.
Bangladesh drying up as India withdrawing Ganges water | priyo.com
IBRIS
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,696
- Reaction score
- -1
I have made my point. Guy's continue going in all directions with your claims. But flooding bangladesh is parapaganda being pushed by some of bangladeshi friends. I have just debunked it. About drying up issues, I will have to look into the data to discuss this further.
Please stop accusing India for floods in bangladesh caused by heavy monsoon rains. We'r also the victim's of monsoon flooding.
Please stop accusing India for floods in bangladesh caused by heavy monsoon rains. We'r also the victim's of monsoon flooding.
Tipaimukh Dam Is A Geo-tectonic Blunder Of International Dimensions
By: Dr. Soibam Ibotombi (Dept. of Earth SciencesManipur University)
Introduction:
The proposed Tipaimukh dam is to be located 500 metres downstream from the confluence of Barak and Tuivai rivers, and lies on the south-western corner of Manipur State (24°14¢N and 93°1.3¢E approximately). It is a huge earth dam (rock-fill with central impervious core) having an altitude of about 180 M above the sea-level with a maximum reservoir level of 178m and 136m as the MDDL (minimum draw down level). The dam was originally conceived to only contain the flood water in the Cachar plains of Assam but later on, emphasis has been placed on hydroelectric power generation, having an installation capacity of 1500MW with only a firm generation of 412MW (less than 30 per cent of installed capacity). In order to appease the people of Manipur state, the project proponent, NEEPCO, has been building up a list of benefits that include high-class tourism, free power sharing, resettlement and rehabilitation package and an all round rosy picture of development.
Over the past decade and half, the issue of Tipaimukh dam has created a lot of disenchantment in regard to scientific, technical, economic and environmental feasibility of the dam especially concerning with the state of Manipur. An attempt is, therefore, made here to provide a brief geological, structural and tectonic account of Tipaimukh and its adjoining region in terms of tectonic framework of Indo-Myanmar [Burma] Ranges (IMR) in general and that of Manipur in particular and possible
socio-economic impacts of the dam. Such a consideration would reveal the nature and extent of the geotectonic risk being taken by constructing a mega-dam at Tipaimukh.
Some basic geological informationTipaimukh and its adjoining areas are basically made up of Surma Group of rocks. The rocks of Surma Group are mainly light grey to brownish grey generally medium to coarse grained sandstones having occasional shale and silt/sand intervening bands between massive to thickly bedded sandstones. Conglomeratic (loosely cemented pebbles and gravel)) horizon at the base of Bhuban Formation, though, can be observed in the field easily due to its wide areal extent; other conglomeratic horizons are generally often missing which is probably due to their localised nature.
In general, this group of rocks are predominantly arenaceous with subordinate shales. Usually shales are less sandy and sandstones are less argillaceous. Some typical natures of bedding similar to turbidite character are also found at places. Like Barails, Surma Group of rocks is also marked by primary structures such as cross bedding, ripple marks, etc.
All these geologic features, lithocharacters as well as primary st ructures suggest a different depositional environment from that of the Disangs and Barails. So, these groups of rocks as well as the younger Tipams are treated as molasse sediments.
The rocks of Surma Group are well characterised by folds and faults having regional strike similar to that of the Barails i.e. NNE-SSW. Fractures are also well developed which have close relationship with the topographic features and drainage patterns. The geometry of folds found in the region is quite typical as in other parts of the Surma Basin and Western Manipur. Antiforms are generally sharp and angular forming ridges while synforms are broad and rounded representing valleys and river beds. Such geometry of the folds might have been controlled by hidden faults called, blind thrusts. And these thrusts could be potential earthquake foci any time in future.
Geomorphic and topographic features around Tipaimukh and its adjoining region is also quite interesting not only because of thickly vegetated low-lying hill ranges but also due to the intimate relationship between the topography especially the drainage system, and the structural and tectonic lineaments of the region. The drainage pattern of the Barak river and its tributary system around Tipaimukh displays how delicately Barak river takes a turn of about 360° at Tipaimukh giving rise to what is called, barbed pattern. Such a drainage pattern is always resulted from the structural control of the river. And practically the main Barak River opposite to Tuivai River itself is also controlled by the Barak-Makru thrust fault. Further it is also observed that main Barak river course and its tributary system are all controlled by faults and fractures as they all show rectangular to sub-rectangular drainage patterns.
All these faults and fractures cause localised shifting or deflection of the main river course, and even at the confluence of Barak River and Tuivai River. Such faults are potentially active and may be focal and/or epicentres of any future earthquake. 1 The author thanks the Centre for Organisation Research & Education (CORE) for substantial inputs into this article from sources based in Bangladesh. The International Tipaimukh Dam Conference 2005, Dhaka saw international water, seismological and geological experts gather along with social activists, academics, writers and leaders from 11 countries.
North-East region among six major seismically active zones of the world Tectonic setting of Northeast India is one of the most interesting aspects in the tectonic framework of Southeast Asia. In this region, two typical tectonic settings are found resulting from the convergence between Indian and Eurasian plates. The Eastern Himalayas represent a continent to continent collision mechanism while the Indo-Myanmar Range is an island arc type of subduction mechanism. Indo-Myanmar Range, therefore, evolved as an accretionary prism where major structural and tectonic features spread out in the form of an imbricate thrust system. The Tipaimukh area, about which the dam is proposed to construct, lies in the Barak-Makru Thrust zone of the imbricate thrust system.
The structural and tectonic pattern of Manipur is transitional between the NE-SW trending pattern of Naga-Patkai Hills and N-S trend of Mizoram and Chin Hills. The general structural and lithological trend of the rock formations of the state is NNE-SSW. It frequently varies between N-S and NE-SW although sometimes NNW-SSE trends are locally common. Almost all the major structural elements such as folds, thrust and reverse faults follow this regional strike. Majority of the extensional structures e.g. normal faults have WNW-ESE trend. While the structures having neither compress ional nor extensional affinities strike in the NW-SE and NE-SW quadrants. Dip of the lithounits varies between moderate to steep angles towards east or west. The geological and structural settings suggest a very interesting tectonic evolutionary history of the state.
The state, forming an integral part of the Indo-Myanmar Range lies in the boundary region of the Indian, Eurasian and Myanmar plates having typical interaction nature. As a result, the region is also one of the most seismically active zones in the world (Zone V, earthquake zones of India).
The North-East region of India is one of the six major seismically active zones of the world that includes California, North-East India, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan and Turkey. So, it is essential to have a brief discussion on these aspects also.Plate Kinematics The root cause of earthquakes in a particular region is more or less exclusively a function of the tectonic setting of that region and its proximity to plate boundary. Therefore, the tectonic setting, plate movements and palaeo- and neo-stress analyses of the region are very important aspects in order to know about the seismic activity of that region. It, not only, will reveal the deformation mechanism of the region but also, will provide knowledge about the structures that may be easily reactivated as a function of the plate kinematics in that region.
Analysis conducted by the author about the plate kinematics in and around Manipur reveals that the structural and tectonic features of IMR in general and that of Manipur in particular evolved through the interaction between the Indian and Myanmar plates rather than Indian and Eurasian (China) plates under a simple shear deformation mechanism.From the analysis it is found that the region has compression in the WNW-ESE direction while extension lies in the NNE-SSW direction. As a result, structures such as folds, reverse and thrust faults oriented parallel to NNE-SSW direction will suffer maximum compression and shortening while structures such as normal faults, tension fractures and joints running parallel to the WNW-ESE direction will undergo maximum extension.
And structures lying in the NW-SE and NE-SW quadrants will have strike-slip movement. The faults and fractures around Tipaimukh dam axis belong to the category that may undergo strike-slip and extensional movements. So, these structures can be easily reactivated causing small to considerable displacement along them by any tectonic phenomena e.g. moderate and large earthquakes. By such a process, if the dam axis is displaced by a few centimetres a serious damage may occur causing a dam disaster leading to huge loss of lives and property.Seismicity Northeast India is one of the highest earthquake potential area in the world due to its tectonic setting i.e. subduction as well as collision plate convergence. Analysis of earthquake epicentres and magnitudes of 5M and above within 100-200km radii of Tipaimukh dam site reveals hundreds of earthquakes in the last 100-200 years. It is found that within 100km radius of Tipaimukh, 2 earthquakes of +7M magnitude have taken placed in the last 150 years and the last one being occurred in the year 1957 at an aerial distance of about 75km from the dam site in the ENE direction.
Beside the frequency of such large earthquakes within 100km radius, it is also further observed that a number of epicentral points align in the form of a linear array parallel to regional strike NNE-SSW or N-S revealing how this Barak-Makru Thrust zone is seismically active. Another important aspect of seismic activity is that shallow earthquakes are far more disastrous than the deeper ones even if magnitude is relatively low since destructive surface waves can be quickly and easily propagated from the focus/epicentre. And majority of the earthquakes that takes place on the western side of Manipur are shallow (50km focal depth or less) which is due to the tectonic setting of the Indo-Myanmar Range.
Under these circumstances whether it will be a wise policy to construct a huge dam or not need to be thoroughly discussed and investigated. The trend of earthquakes shows that the regions which have experienced earthquakes in the past are more prone to it; the magnitude of future earthquakes may be uniform to the past ones; and the earthquake occurrence, geological data and tectonic history all have close correlation (Mollick). The Tipaimukh Dam site has been chosen at the highest risk seismically hazardous zone (See Map).
The dam proponent, NEEPCO claims that seismic hazards are being taken care of through consultations with Rourkee University (However, the Government of Indian has requested NEEPCO to also consult with the Geological Survey of India). Here it is pertinent to state that extreme seismic hazards cannot be addressed adequately or satisfactorily through consultations with seismologists, as the risk inducing and impact factors are mechanical, geophysical, tectonic and socio-economic in nature.The author thanks the Centre for Organisation Research & Education (CORE) for substantial inputs into this article from sources based in Bangladesh.
Tipaimukh Dam Is A Geo-tectonic Blunder Of International Dimensions :: KanglaOnline ~ Your Gateway
By: Dr. Soibam Ibotombi (Dept. of Earth SciencesManipur University)
Introduction:
The proposed Tipaimukh dam is to be located 500 metres downstream from the confluence of Barak and Tuivai rivers, and lies on the south-western corner of Manipur State (24°14¢N and 93°1.3¢E approximately). It is a huge earth dam (rock-fill with central impervious core) having an altitude of about 180 M above the sea-level with a maximum reservoir level of 178m and 136m as the MDDL (minimum draw down level). The dam was originally conceived to only contain the flood water in the Cachar plains of Assam but later on, emphasis has been placed on hydroelectric power generation, having an installation capacity of 1500MW with only a firm generation of 412MW (less than 30 per cent of installed capacity). In order to appease the people of Manipur state, the project proponent, NEEPCO, has been building up a list of benefits that include high-class tourism, free power sharing, resettlement and rehabilitation package and an all round rosy picture of development.
Over the past decade and half, the issue of Tipaimukh dam has created a lot of disenchantment in regard to scientific, technical, economic and environmental feasibility of the dam especially concerning with the state of Manipur. An attempt is, therefore, made here to provide a brief geological, structural and tectonic account of Tipaimukh and its adjoining region in terms of tectonic framework of Indo-Myanmar [Burma] Ranges (IMR) in general and that of Manipur in particular and possible
socio-economic impacts of the dam. Such a consideration would reveal the nature and extent of the geotectonic risk being taken by constructing a mega-dam at Tipaimukh.
Some basic geological informationTipaimukh and its adjoining areas are basically made up of Surma Group of rocks. The rocks of Surma Group are mainly light grey to brownish grey generally medium to coarse grained sandstones having occasional shale and silt/sand intervening bands between massive to thickly bedded sandstones. Conglomeratic (loosely cemented pebbles and gravel)) horizon at the base of Bhuban Formation, though, can be observed in the field easily due to its wide areal extent; other conglomeratic horizons are generally often missing which is probably due to their localised nature.
In general, this group of rocks are predominantly arenaceous with subordinate shales. Usually shales are less sandy and sandstones are less argillaceous. Some typical natures of bedding similar to turbidite character are also found at places. Like Barails, Surma Group of rocks is also marked by primary structures such as cross bedding, ripple marks, etc.
All these geologic features, lithocharacters as well as primary st ructures suggest a different depositional environment from that of the Disangs and Barails. So, these groups of rocks as well as the younger Tipams are treated as molasse sediments.
The rocks of Surma Group are well characterised by folds and faults having regional strike similar to that of the Barails i.e. NNE-SSW. Fractures are also well developed which have close relationship with the topographic features and drainage patterns. The geometry of folds found in the region is quite typical as in other parts of the Surma Basin and Western Manipur. Antiforms are generally sharp and angular forming ridges while synforms are broad and rounded representing valleys and river beds. Such geometry of the folds might have been controlled by hidden faults called, blind thrusts. And these thrusts could be potential earthquake foci any time in future.
Geomorphic and topographic features around Tipaimukh and its adjoining region is also quite interesting not only because of thickly vegetated low-lying hill ranges but also due to the intimate relationship between the topography especially the drainage system, and the structural and tectonic lineaments of the region. The drainage pattern of the Barak river and its tributary system around Tipaimukh displays how delicately Barak river takes a turn of about 360° at Tipaimukh giving rise to what is called, barbed pattern. Such a drainage pattern is always resulted from the structural control of the river. And practically the main Barak River opposite to Tuivai River itself is also controlled by the Barak-Makru thrust fault. Further it is also observed that main Barak river course and its tributary system are all controlled by faults and fractures as they all show rectangular to sub-rectangular drainage patterns.
All these faults and fractures cause localised shifting or deflection of the main river course, and even at the confluence of Barak River and Tuivai River. Such faults are potentially active and may be focal and/or epicentres of any future earthquake. 1 The author thanks the Centre for Organisation Research & Education (CORE) for substantial inputs into this article from sources based in Bangladesh. The International Tipaimukh Dam Conference 2005, Dhaka saw international water, seismological and geological experts gather along with social activists, academics, writers and leaders from 11 countries.
North-East region among six major seismically active zones of the world Tectonic setting of Northeast India is one of the most interesting aspects in the tectonic framework of Southeast Asia. In this region, two typical tectonic settings are found resulting from the convergence between Indian and Eurasian plates. The Eastern Himalayas represent a continent to continent collision mechanism while the Indo-Myanmar Range is an island arc type of subduction mechanism. Indo-Myanmar Range, therefore, evolved as an accretionary prism where major structural and tectonic features spread out in the form of an imbricate thrust system. The Tipaimukh area, about which the dam is proposed to construct, lies in the Barak-Makru Thrust zone of the imbricate thrust system.
The structural and tectonic pattern of Manipur is transitional between the NE-SW trending pattern of Naga-Patkai Hills and N-S trend of Mizoram and Chin Hills. The general structural and lithological trend of the rock formations of the state is NNE-SSW. It frequently varies between N-S and NE-SW although sometimes NNW-SSE trends are locally common. Almost all the major structural elements such as folds, thrust and reverse faults follow this regional strike. Majority of the extensional structures e.g. normal faults have WNW-ESE trend. While the structures having neither compress ional nor extensional affinities strike in the NW-SE and NE-SW quadrants. Dip of the lithounits varies between moderate to steep angles towards east or west. The geological and structural settings suggest a very interesting tectonic evolutionary history of the state.
The state, forming an integral part of the Indo-Myanmar Range lies in the boundary region of the Indian, Eurasian and Myanmar plates having typical interaction nature. As a result, the region is also one of the most seismically active zones in the world (Zone V, earthquake zones of India).
The North-East region of India is one of the six major seismically active zones of the world that includes California, North-East India, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan and Turkey. So, it is essential to have a brief discussion on these aspects also.Plate Kinematics The root cause of earthquakes in a particular region is more or less exclusively a function of the tectonic setting of that region and its proximity to plate boundary. Therefore, the tectonic setting, plate movements and palaeo- and neo-stress analyses of the region are very important aspects in order to know about the seismic activity of that region. It, not only, will reveal the deformation mechanism of the region but also, will provide knowledge about the structures that may be easily reactivated as a function of the plate kinematics in that region.
Analysis conducted by the author about the plate kinematics in and around Manipur reveals that the structural and tectonic features of IMR in general and that of Manipur in particular evolved through the interaction between the Indian and Myanmar plates rather than Indian and Eurasian (China) plates under a simple shear deformation mechanism.From the analysis it is found that the region has compression in the WNW-ESE direction while extension lies in the NNE-SSW direction. As a result, structures such as folds, reverse and thrust faults oriented parallel to NNE-SSW direction will suffer maximum compression and shortening while structures such as normal faults, tension fractures and joints running parallel to the WNW-ESE direction will undergo maximum extension.
And structures lying in the NW-SE and NE-SW quadrants will have strike-slip movement. The faults and fractures around Tipaimukh dam axis belong to the category that may undergo strike-slip and extensional movements. So, these structures can be easily reactivated causing small to considerable displacement along them by any tectonic phenomena e.g. moderate and large earthquakes. By such a process, if the dam axis is displaced by a few centimetres a serious damage may occur causing a dam disaster leading to huge loss of lives and property.Seismicity Northeast India is one of the highest earthquake potential area in the world due to its tectonic setting i.e. subduction as well as collision plate convergence. Analysis of earthquake epicentres and magnitudes of 5M and above within 100-200km radii of Tipaimukh dam site reveals hundreds of earthquakes in the last 100-200 years. It is found that within 100km radius of Tipaimukh, 2 earthquakes of +7M magnitude have taken placed in the last 150 years and the last one being occurred in the year 1957 at an aerial distance of about 75km from the dam site in the ENE direction.
Beside the frequency of such large earthquakes within 100km radius, it is also further observed that a number of epicentral points align in the form of a linear array parallel to regional strike NNE-SSW or N-S revealing how this Barak-Makru Thrust zone is seismically active. Another important aspect of seismic activity is that shallow earthquakes are far more disastrous than the deeper ones even if magnitude is relatively low since destructive surface waves can be quickly and easily propagated from the focus/epicentre. And majority of the earthquakes that takes place on the western side of Manipur are shallow (50km focal depth or less) which is due to the tectonic setting of the Indo-Myanmar Range.
Under these circumstances whether it will be a wise policy to construct a huge dam or not need to be thoroughly discussed and investigated. The trend of earthquakes shows that the regions which have experienced earthquakes in the past are more prone to it; the magnitude of future earthquakes may be uniform to the past ones; and the earthquake occurrence, geological data and tectonic history all have close correlation (Mollick). The Tipaimukh Dam site has been chosen at the highest risk seismically hazardous zone (See Map).
The dam proponent, NEEPCO claims that seismic hazards are being taken care of through consultations with Rourkee University (However, the Government of Indian has requested NEEPCO to also consult with the Geological Survey of India). Here it is pertinent to state that extreme seismic hazards cannot be addressed adequately or satisfactorily through consultations with seismologists, as the risk inducing and impact factors are mechanical, geophysical, tectonic and socio-economic in nature.The author thanks the Centre for Organisation Research & Education (CORE) for substantial inputs into this article from sources based in Bangladesh.
Tipaimukh Dam Is A Geo-tectonic Blunder Of International Dimensions :: KanglaOnline ~ Your Gateway
Prometheus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,942
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
well Bangladeshi friends should be thankful to Indians for building Farata dam....................that controlled flooding to some extend
