A couple of decades ago, the Lakhandei began to change its course and stopped flowing through the town. It earlier followed a north-south orientation from Nepal through North Bihar and finally met the Bagmati, now it joins the Jhim which joins the Jhamura. The three rivers then form the Adhwara.
Sitamarhi does not use the Lakhandei's water for drinking; the town relies on groundwater for its domestic use. Now that the Lakhandei has begun to flow in another channel, the old channel contains unadulterated sewage. This is a strong incentive for the devout Hindus of Sitamarhi to clamour for the return of their holy river.
At the same time, there is now a plan to enclose the Jhim-jhamura within embankments. This has triggered a heated protest in the district. Embankments tend to be violently opposed by people who have experienced living with them. They claim with reason that embankments hinder the flow of water across the land and so lengthen the duration of the very floods that they are meant to prevent.
A group of activists in Sitamarhi led by Shashi Shekhar have two demands:
According to Shekhar, the Jhim-Jhamura rivers do not have water in it, but only get water when the Lakhandei's flows join it. If the Lakhandei is diverted to its old course, there will be no water in the Jhim-jhamura, and so no need for embankments.
The proposed rediverting of the Lakhandei to its old course is at a village near Sonbarsa. Here the old and the new courses are a scant 1.5 km away from each other. The proposers say that they can be connected by digging a canal. This canal, combined with the desilting of the Lakhandei's bed at Sitamarhi should rewind the clock by 20 years, with no harm to anyone, they say. However, the reality is a little more complex.
Let us first examine the physical possibility of this diversion.
In the last 20 years, people along the banks of the old and new courses have also adapted to their new state; those along the old course have moved away from their dependence on river flows and are using groundwater for irrigation, conversely, those living along the new course have now taken up irrigation with river water. Changing courses again will severely disrupt their lives. To reverse the flow will mean negating the investments of each of these groups. The people living along the banks of both the old and new courses are nearly without exception marginal farmers. A loss of this investment is a serious setback.
The situation is very similar to that in the town of Sitamarhi. In the 20 years since the river began to flow in a separate channel, Sitamarhi has swallowed the channel. A young man called Sandeep (last name not given), pointed out that it is not only the illegal construction in the river bed that is at risk but also the foundations of many of the houses that have come up along the river banks.
The other problem is that of bed levels. The Lakhandei changed its course because the old bed silted up. The present demands are to rectify this problem by desilting the old bed of the Lakhandei. However, the executive committee nominated to examine the issue reports that in the 20 years that the Lakhandei has been slowly raising its bed levels, the Bagmati has been doing the same. If the old bed of the Lakhandei is desilted till it reaches the level it was 20 years ago, it will be below the Bagmati's bed level at the point of confluence. This, then becomes an ever-increasing problem. Desilting the Bagmati- a task of phenomenal magnitude- will mean that it is below the Ganga at its point of confluence. Desilting the Ganga is herculean indeed.
Banerjee advocates the redrawing of electoral boundaries in such a manner that people living within the embankments have a vote of their own. The problem of course, is that of motivating the government to give these conveniently silent groups a voice.
Till then, we have no option but to deal with conflicts and struggles over individual embankments and individual rivers.