So far, only in Bolivia, there is a law of the rights of Mother Earth. There is now the case of Whanganui river declared as a living entity in New Zealand. le’ts hope the recent high court order helps clean up the Ganga and the Yamuna
In December 2016, the Uttarakhand High Court had ordered the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to audit all the schemes to clean the river Ganga. Following that decision, on March 20, 2017, the court recognised the rivers Ganga and Yamuna as living entities. It is not for the first time in history, as earlier in New Zealand, the Maori tribe fought for Whanganui river to get the status of a legal entity. The 150-year old battle in New Zealand came to an end as Parliament passed a Bill recently to recognise the 180-mile long body of water as ‘an indivisible and living whole comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea’.
In both the cases, the rivers, though thousands of miles apart from one another, seem to suggest an element of commonality in the form of recognition of water as a living entity.
With the advent of modernity and especially with the rise of modern nation-state, the notion of natural resources and ownership came to centre-stage. The nature turning into natural resource (be it land or mineral ores and now water) attaches certain value to it mainly in a monetary sense. The rivers as source of water, which were earlier considered as common, now became the property of the state. However, there is a long debate as to whether the state is a trustee or an owner/custodianIJ If, on the one hand, there are instances of the state playing the role of trustee when aiming at cleaning water bodies, there are also cases in which the state has discharged the role of custodian.
In India, rivers Ganga and Yamuna are considered as holy and thus an inevitable part of the people’s cultural beliefs. With deteriorating quality of water in these two rivers, in 1985, the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) Phase I, followed by GAP Phase II, starting in 1993. Similarly, the Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) was also started in 1993 as a bilateral project with the Japanese Government. In 2009, the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) with the Prime Minister as its Chairman, was formed. The total expenditure till March 2014 was Rs986.34 crore. In July, 2014, the Modi Government launched the Namami Gange Project with more or less the same purpose as the GAP has served.
It is set to complete in the year 2020. In an another instance, in 2002, a 22.6 km stretch of the Sheonath River in Chhattisgarh was sold to a private company. This action suggests that in the Indian context, the state acts in the role of a owner. later, the contract was revoked after massive protests by the local people and civil society activists from all over the country.
The pertinent question is: Why has one plan after another to clean the lifelines and the two holy rivers failed in IndiaIJ And, is the recognition of water bodies as living entities by the Uttarakhand High Court going to help muchIJ The 2,525 km long trans-boundary Asian river Ganga, and its largest tributary Yamuna, pass through many States of India. There are numerous reasons for their getting pollution.
The recent judgement came following a public interest litigation (PIl) petition filed by lalit Miglani on a matter related to mining and stone crushing. The advocates have cited the example of New Zealand and also named two legal parents of river Ganga. The parents (Director, Namami Gange Project for cleaning and rejuvenating the river and State Chief Secretary and Advocate General of Uttarakhand) have been charged to protect, conserve and preserve the river and its tributaries. Undoubtedly, the onus also lies on the people at large, as the State cannot be held solely responsible for everything.
At a time when these rivers are gasping for breath, the timely decision by the Uttarakhand High Court is likely to have far-reaching consequences in many ways. First of all, it has paved the way for different actors to come together and act towards the cleanliness of the rivers. Second, the decision also suggests on the responsibility to be borne by the private and Government enterprisess also, as they are the major pollutants. Many of these companies do not abide by the norms laid down by the Central and the State Pollution Control Boards.
The High Court has also ordered the closure of several such companies responsible for polluting the rivers. The court has also directed the banning of construction of buildings near the river. With the rivers declared as living entities, they will have the same legal rights as human beings enjoy. This could be a useful tool in fighting the cases of pollution and encroachment. Most importantly, the verdict has also opened up the possibility of a new discourse on rivers, which is beyond the given framework of property and ownership.
It gives some food for thought as to whether rivers are merely a source of water or much more than that. So far, only in Bolivia, there is a law of the rights of Mother Earth, and the recent case of Whanganui river declared as a living entity in New Zealand. let us hope that the high court order helps clean up the rivers Ganga and Yamuna in the near future.
(The writer is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Janki Devi Memorial College, University of Delhi)