Manjur A. Chowdhury, chairman of Bangladesh's River Conservation Commission, has described the Ganga Water Treaty as "flawed" and in need of urgent updating, arguing that the agreement no longer reflects the hydrological and environmental realities of the river system it governs. Speaking to The Hindu, Chowdhury said the treaty, now three decades old, is deficient because it does not include a guarantee clause and fails to incorporate ecological flow and environmental flow considerations.
Treaty Under Scrutiny
Chowdhury's criticism goes to the heart of one of South Asia's most closely watched water-sharing arrangements. The Ganga Water Treaty, signed in 1996 between India and Bangladesh, was designed to allocate dry-season flows at the Farakka barrage and reduce long-standing tensions over downstream water availability. For Bangladesh, the treaty has long been viewed as a crucial instrument for managing the seasonal variability of the river. For India, it has served as a framework for balancing domestic water needs with obligations to a lower riparian neighbour.
The Bangladesh expert's remarks suggest that, from Dhaka's perspective, the treaty's original design may no longer be adequate for a river system under increasing stress from climate change, sedimentation, shifting rainfall patterns and rising demand. A guarantee clause, in treaty terms, is typically intended to ensure a minimum level of water delivery or to provide a binding safeguard when flows fall below expected thresholds. Chowdhury's argument implies that without such a provision, the agreement leaves Bangladesh exposed during lean periods when the Ganga's discharge is most vulnerable.
His comments also highlight a broader shift in water diplomacy: from narrow volumetric sharing toward a more holistic approach that treats rivers as living ecosystems. Ecological flow refers to the minimum water needed to sustain river health, biodiversity and downstream livelihoods. Environmental flow considerations extend that logic to wetlands, fisheries, floodplains and other connected systems. Chowdhury's criticism indicates that the treaty, negotiated in a different policy era, does not adequately reflect these modern principles.
Ecology Enters Diplomacy
The call for revision is significant because it reframes the treaty debate beyond bilateral arithmetic. In earlier decades, transboundary water negotiations in the region were often dominated by questions of how much water each side would receive and when. Today, experts increasingly argue that such agreements must also account for river ecology, seasonal variability and the cumulative impacts of upstream interventions.
That argument is particularly relevant for the Ganga basin, where water stress is not only a matter of allocation but also of river health. Reduced dry-season flows can affect navigation, irrigation, fisheries and salinity intrusion in downstream areas. For Bangladesh, which depends heavily on river systems for agriculture and livelihoods, the stakes are especially high. Any treaty that does not explicitly protect minimum flows, critics say, risks becoming obsolete even if it remains legally in force.
Chowdhury's intervention is likely to resonate in policy circles because it comes from a senior figure associated with river conservation rather than from a purely diplomatic or political platform. That gives the criticism technical weight and underscores the growing influence of environmental experts in transboundary water debates. It also places pressure on both governments to consider whether the existing framework can be adapted through technical review, renegotiation or supplementary protocols.
Pressure For Renewal
The broader diplomatic context is delicate. India and Bangladesh have maintained generally cooperative ties on water management, but river-sharing issues remain politically sensitive and often carry symbolic weight. Any suggestion that a treaty is flawed can quickly become a point of contention unless handled through careful technical dialogue.
Still, Chowdhury's remarks reflect a reality that policymakers on both sides cannot ignore: treaties are only as durable as the conditions they are built to manage. A document drafted three decades ago, before the current intensity of climate stress and ecological awareness, may require revision if it is to remain credible and effective. The challenge lies in updating the agreement without destabilising the cooperative spirit that underpins it.
For now, the expert's comments are likely to intensify discussion over whether the Ganga Water Treaty should be reviewed to include enforceable guarantees, ecological safeguards and more adaptive flow management. In a region where rivers are both lifelines and flashpoints, the debate is no longer just about sharing water. It is about defining what responsible river governance should look like in the 21st century.