This refers to Vinayak Chatterjee’s column “Thinking river-linking” (Infratalk, September 19). The author has put forward a persuasive argument for re-examining the project of river-linking. I would like to add a few points to it.
First, considering that we lose approximately Rs 50,000 crore every year on account of the direct/indirect impact of flood, the outlay of Rs 5.6 lakh crore should pay for itself in double-quick time. Add to this, the potential of enhanced agricultural output, employment and associated economic activity that the project will generate. It is, thus, clearly capable of paying for the investment many times over in the years to come.
Second, if the grid’s architecture is altered to be made up of smaller containment areas interlinked by denser network of smaller canals, the need for displacement would be minimal. We should forego the potential of inland navigation that calls for wider and deeper canals/waterways and go for smaller and narrower channels. Hence, it is a question of re-visiting the overall plan.
What is more important is the attitude of the people who are supposed to drive the project. If we need to evolve newer methods and techniques to surmount the technical challenges posed by these projects, then so be it. Why else do we have all these institutes of higher learning and research?
Deepak V Dev, Bangalore
Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard,
Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201;
letters@bsmail.in
All letters should have a postal address and telephone number