THE Ganga is not merely a flowing sheet of water; it means much more to millions who live and find livelihood based on the river which was declared a national river by the Indian prime minister in 2008. More than half a century back India’s first prime minister had remarked, ‘…The Ganges, above all, is the river of India which has held India’s heart captive and drawn uncounted millions to her banks since the dawn of history. The story of the Ganges, from her source to the sea, from old times to new, is the story of India’s civilization and culture.’ However, the impact of Ganga and the riverine system that it nourishes is not only restricted to India, and is rather spread over entire South Asia.

As a matter of fact, the sheer numbers do tell the story of the river. It is stated that one out of every 12 people in the world live (around 450 million within its basin area) around the river that has a total flowing length of 2,525 km; a flowing area of 1.016,124 sq. km; contains water volume of 525 km3; catchment area of 10 lakh hectares and harbours 100 cities and numerous villages and locations in its basin area. This huge pressure also tells on the health of the river. The range of anthropogenic activities, legal and illegal, apart from the growing impact of climate change, has put the river under severe stress, especially in the recent decades. However, the activism to save the river has grown alongside; so have the media responses.

The river has been affected by a range of factors – from over-exploitation of water to unabated pollution, commercial activities to religious activities. The Ganges flows through the most densely populated sections of India, passing through 29 cities with a population of over 100,000, 23 cities with a population between 50,000 and 100,000, and about 48 towns with less than 50,000 people. A significant proportion of effluents from these areas, often untreated, continually add on to the river through domestic usage like bathing, laundry and public defecation. The pollution from industrial sources is even more important given the sheer volume as well as the poor quality of the effluents. As a matter of fact, the pollution of river Ganges first came into focus – and also in public domain – vis-à-vis the pollution generated by industry. Innumerable tanneries, chemical plants, textile mills, distilleries, slaughter houses, jute mills, hospitals and the like, constantly contribute to the river’s pollution by dumping untreated toxic and non-biodegradable solid waste, apart from the considerable liquid waste. It is believed that the cocktail of pollutants released into the river every day trigger irreparable damage to its ecosystem.

In the Bonn Declaration on Global Water Security in 2013, the river Ganges was christened as one of the most polluted large rivers in the world. It is estimated that each year it carries 16,000 tons of ash from cremated bodies, along with a mixture of sewage and toxic chemicals, a fallout of dense population and rapidly developing economy. The national figures are equally emphatic. A report prepared by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) of India shows that the average BOD values of the river – BOD is the Biological Oxygen Demand which indicates the gross organic pollution of the river – have crossed the maximum permissible limit of 3 milligram/litre at 24 of the total 54 sampling points, a whopping 45% of the sample area. A major part of river is not even fit for bathing, forget about drinking, due to the high coliform count which indicates the mixing of untreated sewage in the river. The statistics show the volume of coliform and faecal bacteria were above limit in about 75% of the sampling points. In certain parts of the river at certain times, the figures were found to be 500 times over the standard of 5000 MPN/100 ml.

In response to a Parliament question in May 2013, it was revealed that presently 3000 mld (million litres daily) of liquid waste contaminate the river. Various reports from CPCB, CSE (Centre for Science and Environment) as well as other government agencies also indicate the high level of industrial pollution affecting the river. According to an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court by the National River Conservation Directorate of the environment ministry in 2007, 661 grossly polluting industries (each with over 100 kg BOD load per day) were located along the Ganga. Of these around 12% had defaulted in terms of managing pollution. In 2012, the CPCB estimated that roughly 500 mld of industrial discharge flows into the river from 764 industries. Likely the actual level and scale of pollution is much beyond what transpire in these official datasets.

 

However the latest – and one of the severest – impact on the river has come from a number of dams and barrages which have either been recently installed or are in the pipeline for irrigation, power and other collateral requirements. Experts opine that there will be no water in large stretches of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi riverbeds – part of Ganga basin – if the Uttarakhand government goes ahead with its plan to build 53 power projects on these two rivers which join at Dev Prayag to form the Ganga, reported the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) on 1 April 2010. A CAG inspection report submitted to the Uttarakhand Governor says that the riverbed is already completely dry at Srinagar (Garhwal) and if all projects are allowed, the aquatic biodiversity of the river basin will become non-existent. The CAG has also criticized the state government’s power policy which has allowed a private company to divert a maximum 90% of the river water to power turbines, leaving only 10% to flow in the natural course of the river. As a matter of fact, there is serious threat of the Ganga disappearing close to its origin. In all, 12 large and medium hydroelectric projects are either functioning, under construction or proposed between Gangotri and Haridwar. Ecologists feel that there will be no free-flowing water for about 250 km of India’s holiest river if all the projects are executed.

 

The efforts to counter and minimize the pollution loads began in 1985 when the Union government launched the Ganga Action Plan (GAP). The Rs 462 crore initiative was targeted at improving the water quality to acceptable standards (defined as suitable for bathing) by intercepting the sewage and treating it before the river discharge. The programme selected 25 towns located along the river in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal, all riparian states. GAP has continued for close to three decades. However, it has been identified as a relative failure by most experts for a range of reasons, mostly because it has failed to achieve what it had set out to do – improving the river water quality. As various points the river water quality has actually deteriorated post GAP, which was undertaken in two phases.

The complaints are many: the infrastructure installed failed to close the gap between the sewage generated and treated in the basin; operations and maintenance of the commissioned plants was often affected by logistic problems; erroneous positioning of treatment plants resulting in their operating well below capacity while the bulk of sewage got mixed with river untreated. However, the biggest complaint against the GAP was its exclusively hardware and technocratic orientation without any consideration for an inclusive and participatory approach.

When it became apparent that the GAP had failed to deliver, the government took initiatives to undertake an even bigger and more ambitious project to save the Ganga. The prime minister announced a proposal to set up a separate high powered Ganga River Basin Authority to stop its pollution and degradation. On 28 April 2011, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs approved the project for the cleaning of river Ganga to be implemented by the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) at an estimated cost of Rs 7000 crore. It has been postulated that another two decades would be required to cleanse the revered Ganges, one of the world’s dirtiest rivers.

 

The roots of activism apparently lie in the ways of operation and mindset of the government towards the river including its future, which grossly differs from the mindset and ways of consideration of the community and civil society. Governments broadly consider the issue of managing the river from a strictly engineering and resource mobilization point of view while civil society looks at the river from the standpoint of reverence and sustenance. However, it is strange to note the micro-macro mindset conflict within the community itself as the river is simultaneously revered and allowed to rot.

The activism to save the Ganga operates at various layers. While social activism has been in place for more than five decades, legal activism is about three decades old. However, religious activism, which is relatively new, has of late become one of the most powerful stream of activism. Also, though these various forms of activisms often overlap, they generally tend to work in isolation. Media, mainly the mainstream print and audiovisual, has played a key role in highlighting issues in the public domain and influencing policy decisions, as activisms often rightfully piggyback on media. Further, the issue is now more often raised in new media, especially post the recent Uttarakhand disaster.

 

The expression of social concerns and activism – overt and covert – around the Ganga has a long history. Both Rabindranath Tagore and Swami Vivekanada had repeatedly written and expressed their anguish about the deteriorating status of the Ganga. The cudgel has been successfully carried on by the likes of Sunderlal Bahuguna, Rajendra Singh and others in more recent decades. In 1998, Rama Rauta, founder of the National Women’s Organization (NWO) under the leadership of Sushila Nair, started the Save Ganga Movement, against the pollution of the river and its tributaries, based on the principles of nonviolence, and tried to mobilize people at large. Eminent Gandhians joined the movement. Also agonized by the government’s inaction towards saving the Ganges, the Ganga Mukti Sangram Saamiti initiated a mass drive by gathering thousands of Ganga devotees along with the Ganga Rath which travelled through Varanasi, Allahabad, Kanpur, Mathura and Vrindavan to finally reach Delhi.

Noted environmental activist, G.D. Agrawal sat on a fast unto death twice in 2008 and 2009 to protest the building of dams in the upper stretches of the river. On both occasions, Agarwal succeeded in stopping construction in this sensitive and sacred landscape. Social activists like Anna Hazare also lent support. Under pressure, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh accepted publicly that there would be no more hydroelectric dams on the Ganga in Uttarakhand. He also called for a National River Ganga Basin Authority (NRGBA) meeting and urged the authorities to utilize the Rs 2,600 crore sanctioned to clean up the river by creating sewer networks, sewage treatment plants, sewage pumping stations, electric crematoria, community toilets and development of river fronts.

Other non-profits also contributed. A Kolkata based non-profit, Environment Governed Integrated Organization, in association with various governmental and other agencies took an initiative to promote the use of non-toxic colours in idol making. Otherwise, idols with toxic paints during immersion, significantly pollute the river water and affect its biodiversity in addition to proving a threat to millions as the same water is used for drinking purposes and standard treatment does not fully neutralize the pollution from heavy metals embedded in these paints. The effort succeeded in generating significant awareness; currently nearly 60% of the idols are prepared from non-toxic paints, a vast improvement from even five years back.

 

In 1985, pollution in the Ganga came into the public domain when advocate M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition against the Union of India and others – the first river pollution case in environmental public interest litigation – alleging unabated pollution from some tanneries in Kanpur and charging that despite having adequate legal sanction, government authorities had not taken effective steps to prevent environmental pollution of the river. Using the judicial route, Mehta called upon state agencies to prevent leather tanneries and the Municipal Corporation of Kanpur from disposing industrial and domestic effluents in the river. Justice Kuldip Singh expanded the petition to include all large cities in the Ganga basin, giving birth to the ‘Ganga Pollution Case’. This has not only contributed to better Ganga governance but also helped formulate fresh environmental norms in the country.

In the 1990s, the Supreme Court upped the ante by passing orders reprimanding government agencies for dereliction of duty. Three landmark judgments and a number of orders against more than 50,000 polluting industries in the Ganga basin have resulted in creating fresh awareness and steps towards controlling pollution. Apart from industry, more than 250 towns and cities have been ordered to install sewage treatment plants. Six hundred tanneries operating in highly congested residential area of Kolkata were shifted out of the city. A large number of industries were closed down by the court and were allowed to reopen only after they had set up effluent treatment plants and controlled pollution.

 

As a result of these directions millions of people have been saved from the effects of air and water pollution in the Ganga basin covering eight states in India. The Supreme Court also penalized various State Pollution Control Boards for faulty reporting and pressed the Ministry of Environment to become more forthright in its approach. Subsequently, several high courts too passed significant orders in this respect. A case in point is the Calcutta High Court, which had not only directed a range of measures to clean up the Ganga within the state of West Bengal but also set up a high power committee to monitor the river on its behalf and report back to the court at regular intervals.

The media lapped up this mode of activism. With the high news value inbuilt with a judicial process along with courtroom dramas, fines and punishments, judicial activism became immensely favourable fodder for media, which by default also created an impact at the decision making and implementation levels. Yet, in the long run, this judicial activism proved limited; it has got trapped by the very system it sought to check, having called on the same agencies it had reprimanded to implement its orders. Still there is no denying the fact that judicial activism created more than a flutter and also triggered media interest in the matter of the Ganga, which has a much larger importance.

 

The story of the Ganges, from her source to the sea, has always been the story of India’s civilization and culture and, above all, its religion. However, till about a decade back, religion was bracketed as the cause of degrading the river. It’s not that religious contribution to the river’s poor health has gone down significantly in recent years. Even the 2013 CPCB report shows that the most revered points on the Ganga – Haridwar, Allahabad sangam, Vrindavan, Dakshineswar and likewise – also happen to be most polluted. However, in parallel with this trend of contributing to the pollution, the religious fraternity has now undertaken significant steps towards demanding a cleaner Ganges. Eminent saints have refused to take holy baths in various Kumbh melas – the holiest of Hindu event – due to polluted water; many feel that this actually forced the Union government to undertake the highly ambitious and costly NGRBA project. Over the years there have been various modes of religious activisms, some muted, some magnified.

In early 2011, Swami Nigamananda Saraswati, a Hindu seer, fasted unto death, protesting against illegal mining in the district of Haridwar in Uttarakhand resulting in pollution. Following his death in June 2011, his ashram leader, Swami Shivananda, too went on, taking his movement forward. Finally, the Uttarakhand government was forced to pass an order banning illegal mining all over Haridwar district. It stated that quarrying in the Ganges would now be allowed only once the related environmental impacts on the river had been assessed and necessary clearances obtained. Due to the heavy pollution load, the religious community has decided that henceforth the sadhus would be given a land burial instead of the traditional water burial, which has been an age-old tradition. The General Secretary of the Juna Akhara, India’s biggest akhara, Mahant Hari Giri said that the decision to preserve the sanctity of the holy river had been taken. Seers like Swami Chidananda Saraswati and Ananda Swarup too have taken a strong stand in this context. Former IIT professor turned saint, G.D. Agarwal, has also fasted a number of times on the pollution issue, forcing the government to backtrack from its ‘anti-river’ stand.

 

Not unexpectedly, the anti-Ganga pollution stand of the seers generates political controversy, especially when elections are in sight. The Kumbh controversy and activisms of frontline seers has been lapped up by the media. The attendance of media in the last Maha Kumbh at Allahabad reached an all-time high with journalists from both within the country and beyond covering the event. This needs to be seen in the larger context of media reporting about the Ganga.

Reporting on the Ganga is episodic and usually stand-alone, often mimicking the waxing and waning of judicial interest. It is worth noting that the best coverage is in the non-English press; this while contributing to local awareness often fails to move the power structure at the Centre. Paradoxically, the involvement of religious leaders in the campaign to save the Ganga, while seen with alarm by the secular intelligentsia, may have helped rekindle interest in this vital concern.

 

References:

Status Paper for River Ganga: Past Failures and Current Challenges. Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Delhi, 2013, p. 13.

Jayanthi Natarajan, Minister of Environment and Forests, Government of India in the Parliament, 2013.

Report on Ganga Pollution (2013). Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

Sacred Ganges Carries Toxic Pollution. Environment Law Alliance Worldwide, 2001 (retrieved 12 September 2013).

‘Retreat of the Gangotri Glacier’, NASA, 23 June 2004.

‘The Ganga’s Last Roar’, Tehelka, 19 July 2008.

‘Indian "Sadhus" Protest Dam Projects on Holy Ganges’, The Malay Mail, 18 June 2012.

‘Ganga Activists Threaten to Re-launch Campaign’, India Vision, 2012.

‘Ganga Receives 2,900 Million Litres of Sewage Daily’, The Hindusthan Times, 17 April 2012.

‘300 Dams on the Ganga: A Bane or a Boon?’, IBN Live, 27 April 2012.

‘Ganga Action Plan Bears no Fruit’, The Hindu, 28 August 2004.

‘Shankaracharya’s Ultimatum to Centre Over Ganga’, The Times of India, 24 June 2012.

‘Government Sets Up Panel to Review Power Projects on Ganga’, The Times of India, 26 June 2012.

J. Basu, ‘Neglect Makes Ganga Experts Quit’, The Telegraph, 11 March 2012.

J. Basu, ‘PM Ganga Assurance’, The Telegraph, 11 March 2012.

J. Basu, ‘Salute a Goddess, Spare a River’, The Telegraph, 27 October 2012.

Priyanka Dubey, ‘Sadhu Dies After a 73-day Fast to Save Ganga’, ibnlive.in.com, CNN-IBN, 14 June 2011.

‘Government Mulls Panel to Check Impact of Dams on Ganga’, The Hindustan Times, 19 June 2012.

J. Basu, ‘Experts Slam Bengal’s Ganga Neglect’, The Telegraph, 19 June 2012.

‘Pranab Gives Go-ahead for Dam on Bhagirathi’, The Times of India, 11 June 2010.