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.)

Selective Outrage

Correspondent
May 9, 2025
2 min read

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page