In the 1980s as secretary agriculture Punjab I had written to the Chairman Wapda (I think it was General Raziq - brother of General Fazal-i-Haq), indicating that the German watershed management project required a biological head and not an engineer to put in strong interventions to reduce the silt intake. The reply from Wapda was that we have no reason to believe that an engineer cannot do so and in any case we would not like to lose a post of Grade 20. How? So we lost the water storage capacity (we have done so in Mangla as well and also in the small and mini dams). It is difficult to convince those that see as far their nose as the famous lawman Dicey would have said.
General Musharraf wanted the project and had been convinced by people that this is the panacea for flood control and for providing more water for agriculture. Shafqat Jamote (Minister Agriculture) and I gave presentation to the Cabinet and those engineers that felt that this should be done. We opposed the construction. I have consistently said so. There are many reasons for that and I will come back to those later. The General was unhappy and asked the then Wapda chief General Zulfiqar, as to whether we can do this. The General was passionately vehement and said that it could be done. The then Member Water, Sardar Tariq, who is still around, was also present and both of them went on a nodding parade. General Musharraf not only said this but also affirmed that General Zulfiqar will also take up the Right Bank Outfall Drain (RBOD) to drain away salt waters through army engineers and who, according to him, were the finest in the world [!!!]. We have the left outfall drain in tatters and unable to do its bit on drainage and here we go with a sister project much more difficult. Who said that we do not regard the lessons of history!! Fair enough and his faith was an indication of loyalty going beyond reality.
General Zulfiqar went in earnest to Badin and spoke about the dam. He was booted out. From there he went to Hyderabad. He came back reporting failure and I think he left the job due to ill health. General Musharraf thought like an armyman that defeat from these civilians would not be taken and he played a master stroke. He brought in a committee headed by a former Sindh Irrigation Secretary Abbasi. He had a team to work with him and he let the general down too after about one and half years of dilly-dallying. General Musharraf was angry. He had been let down again.
Why all this noise every now and then about KBD? There are many reasons. But not a single project of Wapda has been well-conceived and the overrun in time is about twice the original C/B calculations and the cost is twice the amount. The engineers are keen. The Wapda engineers are keen - why? They have a consultancy firm that is full of engineered engineers. Quid pro quo you scratch my back I will scratch your back. While in the Planning Commission, I had done a ten-project survey on the projects of Wapda. Again I had been made Chairman of the Wapda irrigation projects because water does not stand alone and the policymakers were keen that the projects should be so designed that this water could be used for agriculture.
Let us leave this here and ask ourselves what is the water efficiency use in Pakistan's agriculture? In the conveyance of the water in the horrendous canal system we lose about 50 percent of the water. In the farm use our efficiency is about 11 percent and may go up for some farmers. Can we improve the efficiency of the user farmers? How can we do it? For sprinkler irrigation it is about 73 percent and for drip irrigation about 93 percent. Can we switch over? Yes we can. A meeting was held in Karachi on water use efficiency. The ministry of agriculture gave this figure - Rs 36,000 per acre from the farmer and subsidy of Rs 86,000 by the government. The President of Pakistan enquired if I could bring the price down. My reply was in the affirmative and I quoted that this could be brought down by 50 percent. So that decision was taken. Hu Jintao, the retiring President of China, was Chairman of this factory located in Uramchi. He knew that I had visited this factory. But the reality dawned on me when I actually worked the sums. The price came down to Rs 5,000 (from Rs 36,000) and the subsidy came to Rs 36,000 (down from Rs 86,000). That was July 2009. Someone was siphoning off money (consultants appointed probably) and despite all this, the project was shut down by the powers in the ministry and their cahoots. I went to the Planning Commission but nothing came out of it. Later, the companies came to see me. It seemed that the powerful had used these companies and they had taken on board cronies from the power block for the work that was to be undertaken. The point being made is that we do not have to have flood irrigation. That is wasteful use of water. In 1998 when Lee Kwan Yew visited the National Agricultural Research system he specifically asked why we use water so inefficiently by literally throwing buckets of it (his version of flood irrigation). I indicated the reason and he wanted to know why the power block was not taking any initiative? I chose to disregard the question.
Now for the actual requirement of water and I will take two water gulpers - sugarcane and rice. Rice does not require standing water and we had taken this research to the farmers of basmati rice. It was dry seeding and all that it required was that land be kept moist. I did not want them to know that this was the first step. I borrowed three agriculturist officials from Punjab and one from the National Agriculture Research Station. The four of them brought out a research paper showing that 38 percent water saving was possible. This was on 60,000 acres. The yield increase was three times. Any challengers-any numbers and I will take them on single-handedly. They may like to debate on TV. The second myth that was exploded was with regard to sugarcane. I am growing sugarcane on a private research farm on rain-fed conditions. The crop is doing fine and I hope to have 17 percent sucrose content as against 8 percent for Punjab and the yield is likely to increase (and that is what I have targeted) 7 tons per hectare as against the existing 3 tons per hectare. No irrigation water is necessary. I will at some stage tell you how to save water on every crop. When it is necessary it is once or twice (not 18 times) and that indication comes from the plant.
I will continue with this debate. I have always exercised the argument that individuals are not marshalling their thoughts and are not studying the aftermaths of such a policy. The next continuation will be based on the excessive use of water and what it can do to the land economy. How it will affect the macroeconomic stability? The connections with the macroeconomic stability are such that one sees the difficulty of meeting our current debts and how will we meet our subsequent debts? There will be no extra land under production unlike the Tarbela dam. There is no GDP growth because of the extra cost. The debaters are excessively prejudiced one way or the other. There is no engineering problem; there is an irrigation issue and the quantum of water that is required. The unimaginative implication of KBD is that keep on adding water all the time to the land and productivity will somehow increase.
Well, I do not cater to that point of view. I have a different option on matters relating to agriculture and I am not bound by the silly boundaries that the universities of agriculture have created. It is when one can re-imagine agriculture that matters will change. Not by more of the same. I am not a Sindhi, nor I am a Balochi nor a KPK person but one deeply involved in the welfare of my country. Let the Wapda high-ups debate with me those that have been arguing for the KBD.
I will tell you what - try the most outlandish and you may still win out. The Chinese are very good at it. The western countries are not. Ever tried creating water efficient plants and what it takes. What does it take? Grey matter more than anything. Where knowledge is limited what can one say? I do not stand for KBD? Does that make me a renegade? No it does not for I am ready for debate anytime any where. That is how society moves ahead and takes from Jung the principle of enantio dromia (the tendency of things to change into their opposites, especially as a supposed governing principle of natural cycles and psychological development). Any bets that if KBD comes through it will not accomplish what it sets out to do in its objectives. Put your wallet where your mouth is. We may still be able to settle the argument. Such is life? One scientist who lost a bet has yet to redeem it. It was a car bet. When he lost it he said that the car belonged to his wife. Howzzat?