As the 1996 India-Bangladesh Ganga Water Sharing Treaty approaches the end of its 30-year term in December 2026, Bihar’s concerns over the river are returning to the centre of the policy debate. At a one-day Bihar Policy Dialogue organised at the Babu Jagjivan Ram Research Institute in Patna, speakers argued that the State’s water crisis cannot be reduced either to the Farakka Barrage or to the question of international water sharing alone.
The discussion brought together former Bihar Assembly Speaker Uday Narayan Choudhary, RJD State president Mangani Lal Mandal, water expert Nilay Upadhyay, Buxar MP Sudhakar Singh, former NIT Patna principal Er Santosh Shiv, RJD leader Shashwat Gautam and Padma Shri awardee Prof Ravindra Sinha, a noted Ganga basin expert. The dialogue was convened by Prof Subodh Kumar under the banner of Bihar Policy Dialogue.
The central question emerging from the discussion was straightforward but politically significant: Can Bihar address its recurring floods, water scarcity and ecological distress by focusing primarily on Farakka?
The answer emerging from the deliberations was that the problem is considerably wider. Bihar needs to approach the Ganga as a basin system, with attention to the Himalayan catchment, Nepal, upstream States, the tributaries of the Ganga, sediment management, irrigation, navigation and ecological flows.
A Three-decade-old Concern
Participants also referred to a 64-page document prepared during the tenure of former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad and the State Water Resources Department under the guidance of then minister Jagdanand Singh. The document brought together studies, correspondence and other material concerning declining Ganga flows, inter-State water use and the implications of the India-Bangladesh water-sharing arrangement for Bihar.
With the treaty due for review in December, the old record assumes renewed relevance. The issue is not merely whether the treaty should be reopened, but whether the water realities of the Ganga basin have changed substantially over the past three decades.
Bihar occupies a distinctive position in the Ganga system. The State receives water from major Himalayan tributaries, while the Ganga itself carries the cumulative impact of water use upstream. During the monsoon, excessive flows from the Himalayan catchment contribute to devastating floods. During the dry season, however, the State faces serious shortages for irrigation, drinking water and other uses.
This apparent contradiction—too much water during one part of the year and too little during another—lies at the heart of Bihar’s water crisis.
Farakka Cannot Explain Every Flood
Farakka has long remained a politically prominent explanation for Bihar’s flood problem. But the technical picture is considerably more complex.
The State’s flood vulnerability is influenced by rainfall, the Himalayan catchment, rivers flowing from Nepal, sediment loads, river morphology, embankments, drainage congestion and changes in the behaviour of tributaries. Attributing the entire problem to a single barrage risks overlooking these interconnected factors.
A technical committee headed by Nilendu Sanyal was constituted after the devastating floods of 2007. It included experts associated with the Central Water Commission, the Ganga Flood Control Commission and the Central Water and Power Research Station. Its recommendations included regular monitoring of embankments, anti-siltation measures, dredging and greater technical and diplomatic coordination with Nepal.
The committee did not identify Farakka as the primary cause of Bihar’s floods or recommend its decommissioning.
Yet, in 2017, the Bihar Government submitted a proposal to the Centre seeking consideration of decommissioning the Farakka Barrage, arguing that the structure obstructed river flow and contributed to sediment accumulation upstream.
The contrasting positions underline the need for a fresh, independent and basin-wide scientific assessment rather than a debate centred exclusively on Farakka.
The treaty and Bihar’s missing voice
The 1996 Ganga Water Sharing Treaty was signed between India and Bangladesh on December 12, 1996. It established arrangements for sharing Ganga flows at Farakka during the dry season, including a 10-day rotation mechanism between March 1 and May 10.
Bihar was not a signatory to the treaty because international treaties fall within the Union Government’s constitutional domain. But the State has consistently argued that the physical consequences of the arrangement directly affect its water availability.
An important record in this context is the minutes of a meeting held in New Delhi on January 24, 1997, chaired by the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, with officials of Bihar, the Central Water Commission and the Ganga Flood Control Commission.
The minutes record Bihar officials stating that the State had not been consulted before the Indo-Bangladesh treaty was finalised and that the treaty provisions could adversely affect Bihar. The officials sought restrictions on water utilisation by upper-riparian States.
The minutes also referred to the need to involve the eight Ganga basin States in resolving questions relating to Ganga water utilisation, and to possible Central intervention or a tribunal if the States failed to reach an agreement.
For Bihar, this historical record provides an institutional basis for seeking greater participation in future discussions.
Upstream use is part of the equation
Bihar’s water concerns cannot be understood without examining upstream abstraction. Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and other upper-riparian regions have developed substantial urban, industrial and agricultural water requirements.
The question is not whether upstream States should use Ganga water. The larger issue is how much water can be withdrawn without compromising the requirements of downstream States, ecological flows and international commitments.
This requires a basin-wide accounting mechanism. Water availability, existing withdrawals, future projects, environmental requirements and downstream needs need to be assessed together.
Such an approach would also shift the debate from competing State-level claims towards a framework of cooperative federalism.
Nepal is central to Bihar’s flood debate
No long-term strategy for Bihar’s floods can ignore Nepal.
Several rivers that cause recurrent flooding in north Bihar originate in or pass through Nepal. Their catchments receive intense monsoon rainfall, and the resulting flows reach the plains with enormous force.
Flood management therefore requires India-Nepal cooperation on hydrological data sharing, early warning, reservoir operation, flood moderation and multipurpose water infrastructure.
The proposed Sapta Kosi High Dam has repeatedly figured in discussions on Bihar’s long-term flood and water management. Any such project, however, requires careful assessment of its environmental, social, economic and transboundary implications.
The objective would be to create a framework in which flood moderation, water storage, electricity generation and irrigation are considered together rather than as separate projects.
Sediment Needs Science, Not Slogans
The sediment question deserves particular attention.
The Ganga is a sediment-rich river system. Sediment is transported from the Himalayas through the river network and redistributed across the plains. It cannot simply be treated as waste that has to be removed from the river every year.
Large-scale dredging or desiltation without an understanding of sediment dynamics can have unintended consequences. The location, quantity and timing of sediment movement need to be scientifically assessed.
The State therefore needs a comprehensive sediment-management plan covering river training, dredging, navigation channels, erosion and ecological impacts.
Navigation And Economic Interests
The Farakka debate also has a dimension beyond floods.
The barrage was constructed primarily to divert water towards the Bhagirathi-Hooghly system and support the navigability of the Kolkata-Haldia port system. The issue therefore concerns West Bengal’s water and navigation interests as well as Bihar’s.
For a landlocked State such as Bihar, the Ganga provides an important potential route to the sea. The development of National Waterway-1 has strengthened the economic significance of the river.
Bihar’s policy therefore needs to combine flood management with navigation. Assured navigational depth, modern multimodal terminals and better connectivity with railways and highways could help develop the river as an economic corridor.
What Should Bihar Take To The December Review?
The December 2026 review provides an opportunity for Bihar to place a comprehensive, data-driven case before the Centre.
The State needs updated projections of its agricultural, drinking water, industrial and ecological requirements. It also needs a scientific assessment of the water actually available in the Ganga and its tributaries during different seasons.
The eight Ganga basin States could be brought into a structured institutional mechanism for discussing basin-level water allocation and utilisation. Future projects in upstream States should be assessed for their cumulative downstream impact.
Bihar could also seek a formal stakeholder role in future discussions relating to the Ganga water arrangement with Bangladesh.
At the same time, India’s international obligations towards Bangladesh need to be considered alongside the domestic water requirements of the Ganga basin States.
Beyond the politics of Farakka
The Patna dialogue highlighted a fundamental point: Bihar’s water crisis is a basin problem, not a barrage problem alone.
Farakka may remain an important part of the debate, but the State’s future water security depends on a much larger framework—Himalayan catchments, Nepal, upstream abstraction, tributary flows, sediment management, groundwater, floodplain management, navigation and ecological sustainability.
The challenge before Bihar is therefore to move from episodic political demands towards a long-term basin strategy backed by credible data and scientific evidence.
The December review of the Ganga water-sharing arrangement should not become merely another contest between competing claims. It could instead provide an opportunity to build a more transparent and cooperative institutional framework for the Ganga basin.
For Bihar, the larger demand is not simply for more water. It is for a meaningful voice in decisions that determine the quantity, timing, quality and ecological health of the river on which much of its economy and society depend.
---
*Senior journalist
Comments