top of page

By:

Dr. P. K. Singh and Dr. Kishore Paknikar

22 November 2024 at 10:39:13 am

From Cleaner Rivers to Healthier Rivers

A river can look clean and still be unhealthy. Water may meet prescribed standards while native fish disappear, seasonal flows change, floodplains shrink and groundwater connections weaken. New pollutants may go undetected. A river is more than water flowing between two banks; cleaning it is necessary, but does not by itself restore its health. As India looks towards Viksit Bharat@2047, the focus must shift from water quality to river health. Programmes such as Namami Gange are already moving...

From Cleaner Rivers to Healthier Rivers

A river can look clean and still be unhealthy. Water may meet prescribed standards while native fish disappear, seasonal flows change, floodplains shrink and groundwater connections weaken. New pollutants may go undetected. A river is more than water flowing between two banks; cleaning it is necessary, but does not by itself restore its health. As India looks towards Viksit Bharat@2047, the focus must shift from water quality to river health. Programmes such as Namami Gange are already moving beyond pollution control towards biodiversity conservation, ecological flows and biological monitoring. The next measure of restoration should be whether a river is functioning as a living ecosystem. Beyond Clean Water The Central Pollution Control Board’s 2025 assessment, based on monitoring during 2022 and 2023, identified 296 polluted stretches across 271 rivers, compared with 351 polluted stretches identified in 2018. These figures describe pollution, and not river health. Suppose a river meets prescribed standards while its natural flow declines, native fish disappear or its floodplain is built over. Would we call it healthy? No physician would declare a person healthy after measuring blood glucose alone. Rivers, too, need a broader assessment that includes flow, aquatic life, sediments, groundwater and floodplains. European and Australian programs recognize this approach. Scientists at IIT (BHU) have developed and tested a River Health Index for the Ganga at Varanasi, bringing together measures of river condition across locations and seasons. Subsequent research has examined pharmaceutical pollutants and biological responses involving algae, small aquatic animals and fish. Aquatic organisms experience river conditions continuously. A water sample tells us what was present when it was collected; changes in aquatic life can reveal what has been happening over time. Emerging threats include medicine residues, personal care chemicals, microplastics and antimicrobial resistance. Studies of Indian rivers have detected antibiotic-resistant bacteria and genes associated with antibiotic resistance in water and sediments. Sewage, hospital waste, agricultural runoff and industrial discharges can introduce these threats into rivers, linking the health of people, animals and the environment. This is where the One Health approach becomes relevant. High flows, low flows and seasonal floods move sediments, create habitats, connect floodplains and support aquatic life. In many rivers, groundwater helps maintain flow during dry periods. In monsoon-dominated India, when and how water flows matter as much as its quantity. We often try to restore rivers by working on the rivers themselves. Yet many problems begin far from their banks. Deforestation and farming change runoff and erosion. Urban growth reduces the amount of rainwater entering the ground. Excessive groundwater pumping can reduce river flows. Dams alter water and sediment movement, while sand mining and construction damage riverbeds and floodplains. A river cannot ultimately be healthier than the basin that sustains it. Restoration must include tributaries, wetlands, groundwater, vegetated riverbanks and natural drainage routes, not merely treatment plants and riverfronts. The Sahibi illustrates this challenge. Rising in Rajasthan and passing through Haryana before entering Delhi, it has undergone major changes in its flow and surrounding landscape. Its links with Najafgarh Jheel and the Najafgarh Drain show how urban growth, sewage, altered flows and drainage works become intertwined. Treating water in its channel alone cannot restore the wider river system. India’s rivers also differ greatly. A Himalayan river fed by snow, glaciers and monsoon rain cannot be assessed exactly like a seasonal river in Rajasthan or a dam-regulated peninsular river. We need common principles, but different measures and restoration goals for different rivers. Climate change makes this task harder. Unpredictable rainfall, longer dry periods and extreme floods can alter flows, water quality and habitats. Restoration plans must account for these changes, while monitoring should tell us whether improvements last. Viksit Bharat@2047 offers an opportunity to establish a national River Health@2047 framework. It should examine water and sediment quality; natural flow patterns; aquatic life; the condition of riverbeds and floodplains; and the relationship between rivers and the people who depend on them. River Health Index These aspects tell us what to measure. But measurement alone cannot restore a river. Rivers need sufficient water through their natural seasonal cycles, supported by groundwater where appropriate. Pollution must be reduced and wastewater treated. Floodplains, wetlands and natural drainage routes must be protected. Aquatic habitats, biodiversity and connections within river systems must be restored. Farming, groundwater use, urban growth and industry must be managed without steadily damaging rivers. Governments, communities, universities, civil society and businesses must work together, with clear responsibilities for monitoring, protecting and restoring them.
A River Health Index can bring measurements together and identify where a river is under stress, why and what might help. Success must be measured by checking whether natural flows have returned and if aquatic life has recovered. Scientific findings must guide decisions about water use, land use and floodplain protection. Otherwise, even sophisticated measurements will achieve little. Importantly, restoration cannot remain the responsibility of scientists and government agencies alone. Technology cannot replace the knowledge of people who live beside rivers. Their observations of changing flows, disappearing fish and shrinking wetlands can help scientists judge whether restoration is working. This is the spirit behind Bharat Discourses on Rivers@2047: Connecting Science with the Society which begins on October 3 at IIT (BHU). The event raises vital questions. What should be different about Indian rivers by 2047? How will we know their health has improved? What is holding us back, and what must we do differently? Most importantly, what one or two actions should begin by 2027 to achieve our goals? Healthy rivers sustain biodiversity and livelihoods, recharge groundwater, carry sediments and accommodate floods. They are not an environmental luxury to consider after development; they are essential to development itself. We must leave the next generation not merely cleaner stretches of water, but living, resilient rivers. The question for 2047 is not simply, “Is our river cleaner?” It is, “Is our river healthier, and is its health continuing to improve?” (Dr. Singh is a Professor of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi; Dr. Paknikar is the ANRF Prime Minister Professor, COEP Technological University, Pune. Views personal.)

India’s ‘Caged Parrot’: The Compromised Integrity of Probe Agencies

Writer: Kiran D. Tare
Kiran D. Tare
Sep 19, 2024
3 min read

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

India’s ‘Caged Parrot’: The Compromised Integrity of Probe Agencies

In a telling moment during the recent bail hearing of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Supreme Court of India admonished the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), warning that it must dispel its image as a “caged parrot.” The phrase, originally coined by the court a decade ago, once again highlights a persistent problem in Indian governance: the blatant politicisation of supposedly impartial investigative agencies. From the CBI to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), these institutions designed to uphold the rule of law, increasingly appear compromised, their autonomy eroded by the very state they are meant to serve.

The question of whether the CBI, ED, and their ilk have always been vulnerable to political manipulation is not new. But under the Modi government, their role has gained renewed scrutiny. Are these agencies merely continuing a tradition of subservience to the central government, or are they now operating under a more brazen form of political control than in previous administrations?

The CBI traces its origins to the Special Police Establishment, created in 1941 to combat corruption in the procurement of war supplies during the British Raj. After Independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru institutionalised the CBI in 1963 as a premier investigative agency, charged with investigating corruption in central government offices. Over time, its remit expanded to include high-profile cases of criminality, economic offences and, increasingly, political scandals.

Despite the lofty ideals behind its creation, the CBI has always struggled to maintain its independence. Successive governments have used it as a tool to control dissent, intimidate political opponents and shield allies.

A particularly illustrative case occurred during Indira Gandhi’s tenure in the 1970s. During the infamous Emergency period (1975-77), the CBI was co-opted to suppress dissent against the government, pursuing opposition leaders with zeal while ignoring corruption within the ruling party. The agency’s neutrality was further questioned in the aftermath of the Emergency, when investigations against Gandhi herself were conveniently stifled after her return to power in 1980.

The tenure of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi saw the Bofors scandal, in which the CBI was slow to investigate despite mounting evidence of corruption. Subsequent governments, including those led by the Janata Dal and United Front, also dabbled in using the CBI to settle scores.

The term “caged parrot” gained currency in 2013 during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Supreme Court’s scathing remark came in the context of the investigation into the 2G spectrum scandal, one of the most significant cases of corporate and political malfeasance in Indian history.

Since Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) swept to power in 2014, the charge that investigative agencies are being misused has only intensified. Under the current regime, high-profile raids, arrests, and charges against opposition leaders have become almost routine.

Critics argue that these investigations are aimed at hobbling the opposition, a strategy employed not just to weaken rivals but to create an atmosphere of fear. The message is clear: dissent will be met with legal reprisal. Supporters of the Modi government argue that the agencies are simply doing their job. But the optics of such investigations, particularly when they disproportionately target those opposed to the government, are hard to ignore.

The Enforcement Directorate, too, has seen its powers vastly expanded under the Modi government. According to data from the Lok Sabha, the ED has registered over 1,700 cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act since 2014, a 500% increase from the previous UPA era.

While it is tempting to lay the blame entirely at the door of the Modi government, the truth is more nuanced. The politicization of the CBI and other probe agencies has long been a feature of Indian governance. The Congress party, which ruled India for much of its post-independence history, also wielded these tools of power.

The question now is whether the CBI and ED can ever return to their intended role as impartial enforcers of the law. The Supreme Court’s remarks offer a glimmer of hope, but words alone will not suffice. Institutional reforms are urgently needed. The independence of these agencies must be protected through greater accountability mechanisms, such as a more autonomous selection process for key officials, reducing the direct influence of the government of the day.

One solution could be to place the CBI under the direct oversight of a parliamentary committee, rather than the central government, ensuring that no single political entity can dictate its actions. Similarly, limiting the powers of the government to approve or withhold permission for investigations, especially in cases involving government officials or politicians, would help mitigate accusations of bias.

India’s democracy cannot thrive if its investigative agencies are seen as compromised. The parrot, as the Supreme Court suggested, must be freed—before the song it sings becomes irredeemably one-sided.

Comments

bottom of page