Shamya Dasgupta | June, 2003

Almost two decades after river cleanups were hoisted onto the national agenda, almost all rivers in India remain severely polluted. Why?

There is a good reason - or should we say bad - for this sad state of affairs. The country's premier body dealing with river cleanups is ineffectual.

Called The National River Conservation Authority (NRCA) and headed by the Prime Minister, it has met only a handful of times since its inception in 1995. Positive achievements are almost nil.

	Holy shit! Could it get any worse?

This Authority has no less than 17 chief ministers of the various riverine states in the country on board. Yet, insiders inform www.cleanganga.com that most of these luminaries are mainly interested in replicating a failed river-cleaning plan - the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) - in the rivers in their state. Rather than examine GAPs failure and seeking an alternative approach, they seem keen that the Centre allot them those groovy crores of rupees that they can dole out and tell their constituents, "See - this mighty river has been cleaned because of my sterling efforts!"

In 1985, under Rajiv Gandhi's prime ministership, the Ministry of Environment and Forests established the Central Ganga Authority (CGA). The CGA's responsibility, purportedly, was to lay down policies for the tasks to be taken up under the Ganga Action Plan (GAP). The GAP was only the first step for the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP). NRCP then slowly spread its tentacles towards 26 more rivers down the years and now encompasses 25 towns in 16 riverine states.

The NRCA - the new name for CGA after it moved its purview beyond simply the River Ganga - was primarily concerned with diverting sewage flowing into rivers, to other locations for treatment and conversion into valuable energy sources. Dr Manju Raina, joint director of the National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD) states, "We attempted to establish low-cost sanitation works to prevent open defecation on river banks, improved crematoriums to ensure proper cremation of bodies brought to the burning ghats and a number of other things."

Raina maintains that the NRCA has had a significant impact. She says, "The main problem is with the bathing ghats. It is very difficult to keep the ghats clean, especially in some of the pilgrimage centres. But if you go upstream or downstream, on, say the Ganges, you will see the enormous difference the NCRA has brought about. Sewage treatment has been our main aim, and we have been successful in doing that."

This in itself is news to www.cleanganga.com! More than a decade-and-a-half after the ambitious and prestigious launch of GAP, the river is filthy. At Kanpur, in Varanasi, Patna - the list is almost endless. In most of these cities the water is dark and reeks to the high heavens. Is that why we still insist in calling it a holy river?

Har ki pauri Temple of Haridwar

Regardless of the results in the Ganga, the plans move along relentlessly. Today, the NRCA has a number of important rivers under its purview - Yamuna, Gomti, Damodar, Hooghly, etc, apart from the Ganga. Raina says, "Out of the 215 schemes of pollution abatement sanctioned under this plan, 69 schemes have been completed. Approximately 2,455 million litres of sewage are targeted per day." The official delusion continues.

However, a member of NRCA and former director of the GAP, K. C. Sivaramakrishnan, raises a few interesting questions.

"What's the use of these expensive and ambitious plans if they fail to spread a message across to the people? Where is the social awareness?"

He says that the government plans remain one step removed from the main polluter: the average citizen. No amounts of sewage treatment plants, riverfront beautification drives and crematoria would leave a lasting impact unless the beneficiaries understand the significance of it all, he avers.

Sivaramakrishnan goes on to expand on other key areas. "NRCA never paid any attention to the non-biological, chemical polluting agents. That's valid not only for the Ganga, but also for all the rivers of the country. Most rivers in India have become aquatically dead because we have not paid attention to fertiliser and insecticide residues and chemicals contamination. We did manage to stop some of the big industrial polluters, but that doesn't solve even a part of the problem. The bigger problem is the smaller polluter, which is a multiple-source polluter. They need to be tackled."

The third issue, according to Sivaramakrishnan, is technology. He says, "A lot of newer technology could have been brought in to help with sewage treatment and the cleaning up processes. Also, while technology is a key issue, not all technologies are equal to the job of cleaning up, if people continue to remain dirty and filthy. Social awareness was, and still remains, the greatest challenge. We haven't been able to do much on that count either."

When do they meet?
According to an NRCA official, "The NRCAs Standing Committee meetings take place regularly, and the last meeting took place about three months back." Raina's version differed though: "The date was May 13, 2001". She does, however, add, "The committee had to be reconstituted a number of times, because of the number of changes in the Government in India since the time GAP was inaugurated."

Tongue firmly in cheek, Sivaramakrishnan says, "I would, in fact, call the Standing Committee of the NRCA an Out-Standing Committee. The last meeting I attended was a year back, which was headed by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee I don't think the meetings have taken place regularly at all, right since the beginning."

The former director also expresses concern over the politicisation of the NRCA, through what can be called an attempt at one-upmanship. He says, "Especially in the last meeting I attended, I find things becoming problematic and at times silly. The main problem I think is that too many people from different political parties have headed the committee down the years. In the May 2001 meeting, the environment minister was only trying to score points and not doing anything by logic. He was making plans for the treatment of all the Indian rivers according to the assets invested in the Ganga. The programme has failed to get desired results even with the Ganga. Then what is the point of making the same mistake for other rivers, which, to start with, don't even have the same problems as Ganga?"

What is the point, indeed?
Because of political instability at the centre, things have fallen through, with so many changes throughout its years of existence. Also, perhaps, some of the blame can be put to lack of planning and proper implementation of the few plans that did come about.

Meanwhile, the rivers of India slowly choke to death.