Treaty Under Scrutiny
A leading Bangladeshi river expert has renewed calls for a revision of the Ganga Water Treaty, arguing that the three-decade-old agreement is no longer adequate for present-day river governance. Manjur A. Chowdhury, chairman of the Bangladesh River Conservation Commission, told The Hindu that the treaty is flawed because it does not include a guarantee clause and fails to account for ecological flow and environmental flow considerations.
His comments come at a time when transboundary water management is under increasing pressure across South Asia, where rising demand, climate variability and river degradation are complicating old assumptions about sharing arrangements. The Ganga, one of the region's most politically sensitive rivers, is central not only to irrigation and drinking water needs but also to livelihoods, ecology and cross-border diplomacy.
The treaty, signed in 1996 between India and Bangladesh, governs dry-season water sharing at Farakka, a critical point in the river system. While it has long been viewed as a landmark in bilateral cooperation, Chowdhury's criticism reflects a broader debate over whether older water agreements can still serve populations facing altered rainfall patterns, sediment shifts and ecological decline. His remarks suggest that the treaty's legal architecture may have been designed for a narrower conception of water allocation, one that prioritised division of flow over the health of the river itself.
Ecological Gaps
Chowdhury's central criticism is that the treaty does not guarantee a minimum flow, leaving room for uncertainty in years of low discharge. In river diplomacy, a guarantee clause is often seen as a safeguard against variability, ensuring that agreed volumes are not eroded by seasonal or operational pressures. Without such a clause, downstream users may remain exposed when river conditions deteriorate.
He also pointed to the absence of ecological and environmental flow provisions, a gap that has become increasingly significant in modern water policy. Environmental flow refers to the quantity and timing of water needed to sustain river ecosystems, fisheries, wetlands and the broader natural functions of a river basin. Ecological flow is closely related, emphasising the minimum water required to preserve biodiversity and river health. Their omission from the treaty, Chowdhury implied, leaves the agreement out of step with contemporary standards of basin management.
That critique carries weight beyond technical language. Rivers are no longer judged solely by how much water can be divided between states; they are increasingly assessed by whether they remain alive as functioning ecosystems. In the Ganga basin, where pollution, sedimentation and overuse already strain the river, the absence of explicit environmental protections can be seen as a significant policy weakness.
Bilateral Stakes Rise
The comments are likely to resonate in both Dhaka and New Delhi because the Ganga remains a politically symbolic and strategically important river. Any discussion of revising the treaty would need to navigate legal, diplomatic and domestic sensitivities on both sides. India has historically defended the treaty as a cooperative framework that has helped manage a difficult water-sharing issue, while Bangladesh has often pressed for more predictable flows during the dry season.
Chowdhury's intervention does not amount to a formal diplomatic demand, but it adds expert pressure to a long-running conversation about treaty renewal and modernization. As climate change intensifies water stress, older agreements that once appeared stable are increasingly being tested by new hydrological realities. For Bangladesh, which depends heavily on river systems flowing from upstream neighbours, the issue is not merely technical but tied to food security, agriculture and coastal resilience.
The broader policy question is whether the treaty can be updated to reflect current scientific understanding without reopening the entire bilateral balance that underpins it. That would require both sides to consider not only allocation formulas but also river health, data sharing, seasonal variability and enforcement mechanisms. Chowdhury's remarks indicate that, from a river conservation perspective, the present arrangement falls short of what a modern transboundary treaty should contain.
For now, the criticism underscores a growing consensus among water experts that river agreements must evolve with the rivers themselves. The Ganga Water Treaty may still stand as a diplomatic milestone, but its age and omissions are now being openly challenged by those who argue that a river cannot be managed sustainably without protecting the river as an ecosystem, not just as a resource.