Ganga drying at the fastest rate in 1,300 years — why this study felt like déjà vu

An IIT study warning that the Ganga is experiencing its worst drying in 1,300 years is one of those headlines that wakes you up in the middle of the night. The study and reporting around it make a blunt point: a river that has been the lifeline for millions is now under stress at a scale we have rarely seen in recorded history Ganga facing worst drying in 1,300 years, says IIT study. Local coverage makes the same claim — the Ganga is “drying at the fastest pace in 1,300 yrs” — and the alarm should be heard beyond scientific circles Ganga drying at fastest pace in 1,300 yrs: Study.

My immediate reaction — I’ve been saying this for years

I have written about looming water scarcity, water wars, desalination and atmospheric water in multiple posts over the last decade. Reading the IIT findings feels less like surprise and more like validation of a pattern I’ve been trying to call attention to: the slow stacking of bad signals into a crisis. See a few of my past pieces: Looming water famine (2023) Looming water famine, Water Wars Are Looming (2018) Water Wars Are Looming and Making Water from Air (2018) Making Water from Air.

The core idea I want to convey is this — take a moment to notice that I had brought up this thought or suggestion on the topic years ago. I had already predicted this outcome or challenge, and I had even proposed a solution at the time. Now, seeing how things have unfolded, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. Reflecting on it today, I feel both a sense of validation and a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because they clearly hold value in the current context.

Why this matters — beyond headlines

A drying Ganga is not only an environmental signal; it is a societal fault line:

• Livelihoods: farmers, fishers and river-dependent communities face reduced flows, failing fisheries and altered cropping cycles.
• Cities and industry: many towns and cities depend on the river and its groundwater recharged by seasonal flows. Reduced base flow intensifies competition for water.
• Ecology and culture: a river’s flow is the glue for wetlands, aquifers, biodiversity and cultural rituals — all of which suffer when water disappears.
• Groundwater impact: less surface flow generally means less recharge, so wells go down and borewells fail.

Those are not speculative impacts — they are precisely the kind of problems I, and others, have repeatedly tried to point out over the years. For example, my notes on desalination projects and whether they are the right answer for cities (see Mumbai Desalination Plant / a White Elephant?) have always argued for weighing long-term sustainability and equity Mumbai Desalination Plant / a White Elephant?.

What we should do — practical, urgent, layered responses

This is not the time for ideological purity. We need an integrated, layered strategy across immediate relief and long-term resilience:

• Treat and reuse: city wastewater is a resource. Treat it and send it back to aquifers and industry rather than letting it go to waste.
• Decentralised harvesting and recharge: every urban project, every township, every village must be required and enabled to capture rain and recharge aquifers. My correspondence on cascade filtration and procurement looked at practical tech options for treating and reusing water at scale Procuring Technology for “CASCADE WATER FILTRATION”.
• Diversify supply sensibly: desalination, atmospheric-water generators and other technologies can play a role — but planned, powered by renewables, economically sustainable and not at the expense of communities or ecosystems. I have argued for evaluating large desalination as a tool, not a panacea The Biggest FREE Desalination Plant: Sun+Sea.
• Basin governance and data: rivers are basins, not administrative boxes. Flow-information, glacier and rainfall monitoring, and transparent basin-level allocations are essential.
• Community involvement: local knowledge and community stewardship are far more effective than top-down one-off surveys. I’ve long advocated that people be involved in identifying priorities and managing resources — surveys and data must feed citizens’ power to act, not just bureaucratic lists Govt's door-to-door survey to identify poverty vulnerability among urban workers (see my reflections on surveys and local involvement Involving People: A Path to Empowerment).

A note on urgency and humility

We must act with speed but also humility. Rivers have complex hydrology, glaciers have delayed responses, monsoon patterns are shifting, and human withdrawals have cumulative effects. The IIT study gives us a clearer alarm bell — we cannot file it away as another headline. We must combine science, policy and community action.

Final thought — the river is a mirror

Each river tells us a story about how we live. The Ganga’s drying is a mirror we cannot ignore: of energy choices, land use, extraction practices, and our collective willingness to plan for the long term. I wrote about these threads repeatedly because I thought they mattered — now the evidence has caught up. That should spur us from validation to action.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh

When a President Says ‘Time to Stop’: Annexation, Borders and the Old Habit of Redrawing Maps

I woke up to the same sentence repeating in my head: “I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.” Those words, spoken by President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, landed like an unexpected pause in a conversation that has been accelerating toward permanence — of settlements, of frontline politics, of frozen conflicts made permanent by maps and fences “Trump says he will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank” (AP). Al Jazeera carried a similar framing of the moment and the regional tensions it exposes “Time to stop’: What Trump said on allowing Israel to annex the West Bank”. A short CNN clip of the press exchange captured the bluntness of the sentence and the theatre of presidential restraint (video shared via Facebook).(CNN video).

Hearing a leader say “time to stop” feels at once reassuring and unnerving. Reassuring because it signals a limit — a boundary — against a policy many fear would close off a two-state horizon. Unnerving because words alone rarely reverse decades of settlement expansion, political calculations, and the domestic pressures that push leaders toward annexation.

Why this moment matters to me

I have written, in other contexts, about borders, displacement and the human cost of unresolved lines on a map. Years ago I toyed with audacious ideas — floating islands and new political geographies — partly as a critique and partly as a creative response to displacement and exclusion (Not So Farfetched, After All). I have also returned many times to the stubborn, tragic inertia of territorial disputes — Kashmir being the case I have examined most closely — where rhetoric and identity keep millions trapped in conflict while pragmatic solutions are dismissed (A 100years Stand-off?, A Contrarian View).

The core idea I want to underline here is this — I had raised these themes years ago: that long-running territorial disputes calcify human suffering, and that political theatre around “sovereignty” often blocks pragmatic compromise. Seeing leaders now circle — threaten annexation, then a president says he will block it — feels like a validation of those earlier warnings. It also renews my sense of urgency: the same structural problems remain.

Three immediate reflections

• Domestic incentives trump principle. Netanyahu’s coalition includes forces that openly favor annexation; for them, territorial gains are political currency. International rebuke matters (Arab states and Europe have made their positions clear), but domestic political survival often wins out. The timing of the Oval Office remark — with Netanyahu’s visit looming — highlights the friction between domestic coalition politics and international diplomacy (AP / KCBD coverage).

• Annexation is not merely a legal act; it reshapes possibility. The West Bank as annexed territory would make the practical prospect of a viable Palestinian state vanishingly small. Many in the international community view such a move as fatal to the two-state framework; it would also deepen the humanitarian and security dilemmas the world is trying to manage in Gaza and the West Bank (Al Jazeera).

• Third-party leverage is uneven but indispensable. I have argued before that some disputes become so entrenched that bilateral talks alone cannot resolve them; third-party mediation — honest brokers who can help reframe incentives — can be the only practical path to de-escalation (A Contrarian View). Today’s assertion by the U.S. president is a reminder that external actors can set red lines. But words need follow-through: credibility, consistent policy, and willingness to use leverage when lines are crossed.

What history and my own writing keep telling me

My writings on Kashmir were not only about that specific conflict. They were about how nations cling to ideas of territory long after those ideas stop serving human welfare. I have suggested pragmatic approaches — from converting lines of control into internationally recognized borders to creative solutions for displaced populations — not because geography is trivial, but because human lives deserve politics that remove perpetual uncertainty (A 100years Stand-off?; Permanent Solution for Kashmir?).

When I revisit those posts now, I feel a quiet vindication and also a sober impatience. Vindication, because the problems I pointed at — the costs of frozen conflicts, the cruelty of uncertainty, the need for outside mediation — remain painfully visible. Impatience, because the longer we rehearse the same arguments, the more lives pile up in the ledger of avoidable suffering.

Final thought

A president saying “time to stop” can be a moment of restraint or a diplomatic posture. For such moments to matter, they must be backed by consistent policy, moral clarity, and the courage to press where political costs are high. Borders drawn hastily or opportunistically rarely heal; they more often harden wounds. My small, recurring plea over the years has been that leaders — for the sake of those who live inside these contested maps — should treat borders as problems to solve humanely, not prizes to be won.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh