The discussion for the third episode of The Green Mandate – Season 3 on ‘Assessing the River Interlinking Project’ focused on India’s Interlinking of Rivers Project (ILRP), on 20th February 2025 at India International Centre, New Delhi. The panel included Mr. Shashi Shekhar (ex-IAS and former Secretary at the Ministry of Water Resources), Mr. Jasbir Singh Chauhan (ex-IFS and former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests), and Mr. Himanshu Thakkar (Coordinator of South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People). The discussion was moderated by Mr. Debaditiyo Sinha (Senior Resident Fellow and Lead, Climate & Ecosystems at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy).

India’s Interlinking of Rivers Project (ILRP) is a large-scale initiative aimed at transferring water from surplus to deficit basins to address water scarcity, floods, and irrigation challenges. Proposed under the 1980 National Perspective Plan, it involves dams, canals, and reservoirs to redistribute water. While it promises enhanced irrigation and water security, experts warn of severe ecological disruptions, loss of biodiversity, and displacement of communities. The Ken-Betwa Link Project, the first under ILRP, has sparked controversy over its impact on Panna Tiger Reserve and local people. 

The discussion was attended by approximately 50 participants and continued for two hours. The recording of the full discussion can be watched on YouTube. Below is a brief summary of the discussion.

Origins of ILRP

Mr. Shashi Shekhar provided historical context, explaining how the idea of interlinking rivers dates back to British engineer Arthur Cotton in the 19th century. The modern version gained momentum with the National Perspective Plan in 1980 and the establishment of the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) in 1982. The Ken-Betwa Link Project (KBLP) is the first under this initiative to reach the implementation stage. 

Challenges and Ecological Concerns 

Mr. Himanshu Thakkar highlighted the fundamental flaws in the project’s assessment. He pointed out that NWDA’s feasibility studies lack scientific rigor, with no transparent methodology to establish surplus and deficit river basins. Moreover, hydrology data is outdated, non-peer-reviewed, and not publicly available. He emphasized that ILRP is based on manipulated data, favoring politically driven narratives rather than objective scientific analysis.

Mr. Shekhar further noted that the ILRP faces various socio-economic and technical challenges. Water is a state subject, and states have historically resisted sharing resources. The cost-benefit analysis of this project did not factor in many externalities and has been based on administrative decisions with little consideration for hydrological data. Additionally, the project is prohibitively expensive—initial estimates have already ballooned to over INR 44,000 crores, with projections suggesting it could easily reach INR 1 lakh crore.

Mr. Jasbir Singh Chauhan warned about the irreversible environmental damage from the ILRP, particularly concerning the Ken-Betwa Link Project, which will submerge approximately 58 sq. km of the core habitat of the Panna Tiger Reserve. This would lead to habitat loss for endangered species such as tigers, vultures, and gharials. Some claims that increased water availability will benefit wildlife were dismissed as flawed. When asked whether notifying new tiger reserves as compensation for the submergence of Panna Tiger Reserve would help wildlife, he mentioned that although tigers are reported to be moving to other sanctuaries, including Ranipur Tiger Reserve in Uttar Pradesh, he also expressed concern about disturbances from developmental activities, particularly linear infrastructure projects such as highway and railway expansions, which limit the potential of such efforts.

Additionally, the discussion touched on how the project would impact river ecosystems by altering natural water flows, reducing sediment transportation, and changing biodiversity of the riparian ecosystems. The panelists also noted that flood and drought regulation through large-scale projects like ILRP might not be as effective as decentralized water management solutions.

Socio-Economic and Legal Implications

The discussion also addressed the socio-economic costs of the ILRP. Mr. Thakkar explained that while the project claims to benefit Bundelkhand, it will, in reality, divert water away from this drought-prone region. He further pointed out that the upper Betwa is not part of Bundelkhand. He cited correspondences from government officials which claimed that the Ken-Betwa interlinking can increase social unrest.

Mr. Shekhar emphasised that the claim of surplus water in the Ken River basin—which is significantly smaller than the Betwa River basin—requires a thorough analysis based on hydrology and ecological assessments, rather than being driven solely by human consumption forecasts. He also expressed concern over the lack of accountability in the project’s approach.

The panel also discussed the displacement of communities due to submergence, land acquisition, and compensatory afforestation in Panna district. Panelists highlighted the failure of public consultations and raised concerns about the credibility of the environmental and forest clearance processes. They cited instances where political leaders pressured expert committees to approve the project despite initial rejections, dissolved and reconstituted committees to secure favourable recommendations, and withheld critical hydrological data from public scrutiny.

Audience Questions and Expert Responses

During the Q&A, audience members raised concerns about the political motivations behind ILRP and why it continues despite overwhelming evidence against its feasibility. Mr. Shekhar explained that large-scale projects like these often serve political interests, bringing financial benefits to specific regions and contractor lobbies. Some participants asked why traditional water conservation methods were not being prioritized instead. The panelists agreed that restoring old water-harvesting structures, such as the 10,000 traditional dams in Bundelkhand, would be a far more effective and sustainable approach. There were also questions about the possibility of legal challenges. Mr. Thakkar and Mr. Shekhar acknowledged that while the Supreme Court has ruled strongly on environmental issues in the past, it has not taken decisive action against ILRP. Another discussion emerged around the dominance of engineers in India’s water policy, sidelining ecological perspectives. Mr. Thakkar pointed out that institutions like the Central Water Commission continue to prioritize dam-building over ecosystem-based water management, despite mounting evidence that such approaches are outdated and harmful.

Alternatives and Way Forward

The panelists agreed that decentralized water management solutions, such as reviving traditional water harvesting structures, are more sustainable alternatives. Mr. Shekhar pointed out that Bundelkhand historically had over 10,000 small dams and reservoirs that could be restored to provide local water for drinking and agriculture requirements. Mr Thakkar mentioned that Bundelkhand is facing water scarcity only in 5-6 decades since when we started damaging the local water conservation structure. The speakers criticized the government’s focus on large-scale engineering solutions rather than strengthening community-based water governance.

The discussion concluded with a call for greater transparency, scientific integrity, and participatory decision-making in water management. They emphasized that ILRP, in its current form, prioritizes political interests over environmental sustainability and long-term water security.

You can watch the full recording of the discussion from the YouTube link shared above.