The interlinking of rivers can provide viable solutions to the multi-dimensional inter-related problems of droughts, floods and interrupted navigation. Critically examine.
Approach · directive: “critically examine”
What it asks · Assess whether linking rivers can solve droughts, floods and navigation problems, weighing benefits against ecological, financial and federal costs.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Examine the case for interlinking as a solution to droughts, floods and interrupted navigation
- Examine the concerns: hydrological, ecological, financial and federal
- Give a reasoned verdict and the way forward
Open with · The National Perspective Plan (1980) envisaged transferring water from surplus to deficit basins through Himalayan and Peninsular river links.
Cover
- Case for: transfers could irrigate drought-prone and rain-shadow regions, moderate floods in the Ganga–Brahmaputra basins, add hydropower and open inland waterways.
- Drought and floods: a link helps only if the donor basin has a real surplus; floods peak in the same season across basins, limiting diversion.
- Navigation: canals can add waterways, as with the National Waterways Act 2016, but seasonal flows limit year-round use.
- Ecological risk: reduced downstream flow harms deltas, wetlands and fisheries; submergence displaces people; Ken–Betwa affects the Panna Tiger Reserve.
- Cost and viability: huge capital, energy for lifts, long gestation and uncertain benefit–cost ratios compared with watershed management, drip irrigation and groundwater recharge.
- Federal: water is a State subject, so links need State consent; the Supreme Court (2012) directed a special committee; Ken–Betwa rests on a 2021 agreement.
- Way forward: prioritise consensual links with independent environmental appraisal, and pair them with demand management.
Close with · River linking can be one tool but not a panacea; case-by-case, consensual and ecologically vetted projects, with local water harvesting, are more credible.
Add value (verified)
- Water is mainly a State subject, and Article 262 lets Parliament provide by law for adjudicating disputes over inter-State river waters, the legal backdrop to any link across State lines. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 262(1) — Legislative Department ↗“Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2020, GS Paper I — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 281 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
The National Perspective Plan (1980) proposed moving water from basins with a surplus to those in deficit through Himalayan and Peninsular links; the Ken-Betwa link, cleared after a 2021 agreement, is the first to move ahead.
The case for interlinking
- Drought: transfers can irrigate rain-shadow and drought-prone tracts such as Bundelkhand, stabilising farm incomes where rainfall fails.
- Floods: storing and diverting monsoon peaks in the Ganga-Brahmaputra basins could moderate floods that recur every year.
- Navigation and power: link canals and reservoirs add inland waterways, complementing the National Waterways Act 2016, and hydropower at link dams.
The concerns
- Hydrology: a link works only if the donor basin has a true surplus; floods peak in the same weeks across basins, so diversion cannot absorb them, and lean-season flows for navigation remain thin.
- Ecology: cutting downstream flows starves deltas, wetlands and fisheries; submergence displaces people, and Ken-Betwa drowns part of the Panna Tiger Reserve.
- Economics: huge capital, pumping energy for lifts, long gestation and uncertain benefit-cost ratios, against cheaper watershed work, drip irrigation and groundwater recharge.
- Federalism: water is a State subject and Article 262 leaves inter-State water disputes to a law of Parliament; links need consent, which the Supreme Court's 2012 direction for a special committee could not create.
Verdict and way forward
- Interlinking can answer specific deficits but not the seasonal and geographic mismatch that defines Indian floods and droughts.
- Take up consensual links case by case, with independent environmental appraisal and rehabilitation, and pair every link with demand management and local water harvesting.
River linking is one instrument, not a panacea; consensual, ecologically vetted projects backed by strong local water management offer more credible relief than a national grid of canals.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.