Shripad Dharmadhikary: Bhakra Nangal - fact and fiction

Don't damn the dam" by Ramesh Bhatia and R P S Malik (Business Standard, August 20), attempting a critique of our study of the Bhakra Nangal project (Unravelling Bhakra) says that we have used incorrect as well as incomplete facts. Neither of the accusation is correct. In trying to prove these accusations, they take to a selective reading, and even distorting or falsely presenting our arguments.

Our errors of commission
Bhatia and Malik question our finding that the project did not have any dramatic impact in the initial years. By questioning the years we have chosen to compare (1950-51 and 1962-63) and proposing that 1950-51 and 1967-68 would have been more reasonable milestones, they show that production of various agricultural commodities was three-four times higher in Punjab comparing these two years.

In fact, the years suggested would have been the most inappropriate milestones. Far from restricting the comparison to only the years 1950-51 and 1962-63, we have presented the figures for all the years from 1950-51 to date "" something that Bhatia and Malik deliberately ignore.

Nor is it correct to say that the performance in the initial years could not be used to understand the impacts. In the case of the Bhakra-Nangal, a conscious decision was taken to build the canal network along with or before the dam. Thus, unlike many of the later day projects, irrigation became available and developed early on.

We have purposely broken down the series into two "" up to 1962-63, and then beyond, with a view to draw attention to an event that happened around 1964-65 "" the introduction of the high yielding variety (HYV) seeds that sparked off the Green Revolution.

So dramatic was its impact that the state-wide average yield of wheat in Punjab jumped by 1.7 times from 1963-64 to 1968-69, while the production increased by 2.4 times in just five years. This spectacular increase continued, and, as our study found, was fuelled by essentially by groundwater irrigation.

Bhatia and Malik say that it was Bhakra that made this possible as assured, adequate and timely water that is critical to the performance of the HYV of seeds was available "mainly from Bhakra". This is grossly incorrect.

The reality was that many decades before Bhakra, Punjab and Haryana already had several extensively developed irrigation systems based on diversions from the major rivers.

These included the UBDC (started 1859), the Western Jamuna system (irrigation since time of Akbar, but modernised in 1879), the Sirhind canal system (started 1882) to name the major ones, along with large areas of well irrigation. Bhakra added to this, but can hardly be said to be the main source.

What is more important is that the canals could hardly provide the timeliness and control of watering required by HYV seeds. This was done by the tubewells. The mid to late 1960s saw an explosive growth in tubewells in Punjab soon followed by Haryana. Groundwater extraction went over and above the recharge.

Here is an example of how our arguments are deliberately distorted by Bhatia and Malik so that our study can be critiqued. They say that we "also blame the dam for the serious problem of falling groundwater in Punjab and Haryana". We have never made any such assertion. Rather, we have clearly stated that these are linked to the large-scale mining of groundwater.

Bhatia and Malik say that the Bhakra dam system is an important source of groundwater recharge. We have identified that the water required for agriculture in Punjab and Haryana comes from several sources "" rainfall, canals, groundwater recharged by rain and rivers, groundwater recharged by the canals and groundwater extracted over and above recharge (mined groundwater).

Thus, while we acknowledge that groundwater is being recharged by the canals, the real issue is "" how much is the contribution of each of these?

We agree that the groundwater recharge from canals is significant "" we use an estimate that 60 per cent of the groundwater recharge is from canals. However, Bhakra is not the only canal system that is responsible. There are a host of other canal systems in the two states.

Even with all this, we find that around 43 per cent of Punjab's production is based on mined groundwater, while Bhakra contributes 11 per cent (this includes contribution of Bhakra canal seepage).

Our errors of omission
Bhatia and Malik say that we ignore power benefits. The focus of our study is on the food production and food security, so irrigation naturally is the main issue. But this does not mean we haven't considered the power benefits.

In fact, we have taken as given the figures of power generation claimed by the authorities. We have also said that if the canal seepage is to be counted as a benefit of the project then the power used to lift this is implicitly already considered.

Bhatia and Malik also say that we have ignored the indirect benefits. In our study, we have taken the indirect benefits and indirect impacts as being implicit in the direct benefits and impacts.

For example, one of the indirect economic benefits suggested is that increased production provides inputs for further processing. We have considered this implicit when we record that production has increased. There is certainly merit in trying to quantify these, but not doing so does not make it an error of omission. Moreover, in trying to quantify indirect benefits, there are many serious issues of methodological limitations, data, assumptions and interpretations.

Unfortunately, apart from some preliminary findings presented by Bhatia and Malik two years ago, their final study is not yet in public domain so these are not clear.

However, two important assumptions they hold are apparent. They consider the Pong dam project as a part of the Bhakra project, but this is not made clear. It appears from a paper published by them elsewhere that they are attributing to Bhakra all the canal irrigation and 95 per cent of the gross irrigation in Punjab. No wonder Bhakra acquires a larger than life image.

Thus, rather than our study being based on incorrect and incomplete data as alleged, it is they who tend to exaggerate the benefits of Bhakra.

The author and his colleagues at the NGO Manthan Adhyan Kendra have recently published the book Unravelling Bhakra: Assessing the Temple of Resurgent India