River-interlinking projects promise water security but often trigger ecological and social costs. Discuss with reference to the Ken-Betwa Link Project.

Q. River-interlinking projects promise water security but often trigger ecological and social costs. Discuss with reference to the Ken-Betwa Link Project. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Ken-Betwa Link Project (KBLP), cleared by the Union Cabinet in 2021 at ₹44,605 crore, is the first link under the 1980 National Perspective Plan to reach implementation [1]. It embodies the central dilemma of interlinking: assured water for a parched region weighed against submerged forests and uprooted communities.

The water-security promise - Transfers "surplus" Ken water to the deficit Betwa basin, serving chronically drought-prone Bundelkhand — ten districts of Madhya Pradesh and Banda, Mahoba, Lalitpur and Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh [1]. - Delivers annual irrigation of 10.62 lakh hectares, drinking water to about 62 lakh people, and 103 MW hydro plus 27 MW solar power [1]. - Central support of ₹39,317 crore and the MP–UP agreement demonstrate cooperative federalism in resolving a long-contested basin claim [1].

Ecological costs - The Daudhan reservoir submerges roughly 9,000 hectares, including 4,141 ha of Panna Tiger Reserve core and 1,314 ha of buffer [2] — the very habitat rebuilt after tigers were locally lost there. - Extensive felling fragments forest connectivity; compensatory afforestation cannot replicate mature habitat within a project timeline. - The "surplus–deficit" premise itself is contested, since climate variability may unsettle the assumed flows.

Social costs - Ten villages and about 1,913 families face displacement from the submergence zone alone [2]. - Tribal households in Panna and Chhatarpur allege forced relocation, demolitions and opaque application of the LARR Act, 2013, with unequal packages for submergence-affected and canal-affected families [3]. - Sustained agitation — an 18-day hunger strike ended only after the administration ordered fresh verification of excluded families [4] — shows correction driven by protest rather than planning.

KBLP's benefits are real, but its costs fall disproportionately on forests and forest-dwellers. Front-loaded, transparent LARR compliance with land-for-land resettlement, independently audited wildlife mitigation, and consent secured before construction would let interlinking deliver water security without sacrificing ecological and constitutional commitments to tribal dignity.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. PIB — Cabinet approves Ken-Betwa Interlinking of Rivers Project (Dec 2021) — project cost, ₹39,317 crore central support, irrigation/drinking water/power benefits, beneficiary districts 2. PIB — Impact of Ken Betwa Project, Rajya Sabha reply (Ministry of Jal Shakti) — 9,000 ha submergence, 4,141 ha PTR core and 1,314 ha buffer, 10 villages and 1,913 affected families 3. Down To Earth — Ken-Betwa River Link: Tribal Families in Madhya Pradesh Fight for Fair Compensation and Rehabilitation — forced relocation, demolitions, LARR Act 2013 non-compliance, unequal compensation 4. Down To Earth — Ken-Betwa Project Protest Leader Ends 18-Day Fast After Fresh Verification Order in MP Villages — 18-day hunger strike and post-protest verification of excluded families