Photo by Rathin Das
By Deepak Parvatiyar*
Rs 10,000 Cr Spent, Yet 279 Rivers Remain Toxic: Are India’s Rivers Drowning in Wasted Funds?
New Delhi: A toxic river is like a spider’s web, ensnaring life in its sticky, poisonous strands, where every flow traps more debris and decay. Its silken threads, once shimmering with promise, now drape the earth in a suffocating shroud, entangling ecosystems in despair and leaving communities to wither in its grasp.
Despite over Rs 10,476 crore spent by the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) from 2020 to 2025, 311 stretches across 279 rivers in India remain polluted, according to the Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) 2022 report, which the Minister of State for Jal Shakti, Raj Bhushan Choudhary, cited in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha on August 21, 2025.
With industrial effluents, untreated sewage, and agricultural runoff still choking rivers, the massive investment raises questions about whether funds are delivering results or merely flowing into a quagmire of systemic inefficiencies.
In India, the cradle of ancient river civilisations, 279 of 603 monitored rivers, spanning 311 polluted stretches, are battling a toxic tide, as per the CPCB’s 2022 findings. From the sacred Ganga to lesser-known tributaries, these waterways, vital for millions, are sullied by untreated sewage from burgeoning cities, industrial effluents, agricultural runoff, open defecation, and solid waste. Since 2020, the NMCG, under the Namami Gange Programme, has disbursed Rs 10,476.86 crore to reverse this crisis, with annual allocations swelling from Rs 1,339.97 crore in 2020-21 to Rs 2,589.11 crore in 2024-25. An additional Rs 5.98 crore was released in July 2025 to the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, for a Centre of Excellence under the Indo-Dutch Strategic Water Partnership, aimed at leveraging cutting-edge technology for river management. Yet, as millions of litres of sewage continue to pour into rivers daily, the question echoes: Is this colossal expenditure cleaning India’s rivers, or is it being swallowed by bureaucratic inertia and systemic failures?
Namami Gange: Huge Costs, Modest Gains
Launched in 2014 with a vision to rejuvenate the Ganga and its tributaries, the Namami Gange Programme has been a flagship initiative of the Ministry of Jal Shakti, combining infrastructure projects like sewage treatment plants with pollution control and ecological restoration. The CPCB’s 2022 report, however, paints a grim picture: the number of polluted river stretches (311) shows only marginal improvement from the 351 identified in 2018, despite years of funding. The Ganga alone, revered by millions, remains heavily polluted in stretches like Kanpur and Varanasi, where untreated sewage and industrial waste create dead zones unfit for aquatic life or human use. The CPCB monitors 4,538 Grossly Polluting Industries (GPIs), of which 3,672 are operational. While 3,064 comply with environmental standards, 571 have received show-cause notices, 36 face closure orders, and only one has been penalised. This leniency suggests that enforcement, a critical cog in the cleanup machinery, is creaking under pressure.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has been a vocal watchdog, mandating state action plans in 2018 to address polluted stretches. A Central Monitoring Committee, chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation, has held 20 meetings to oversee these plans. Yet, coordination between states and the central government appears uneven, with urban and industrial growth outpacing mitigation efforts. In Varanasi, for instance, devotees still bathe in the Ganga’s murky waters, unaware or undeterred by its high faecal coliform levels. In industrial hubs like Kanpur, tanneries and textile units, despite regulations, continue to dump effluents, undermining cleanup efforts.
Complementary initiatives offer glimmers of progress. The Atal Bhujal Yojana, a community-led groundwater management scheme in seven states, has utilised Rs 3,418.20 crore of its Rs 3,861.68 crore allocation by March 2025, and claims to have benefitted 9.78 lakh farmers with water-efficient practices like drip irrigation and mulching. It also claims to have supported the construction or renovation of 81,700 water conservation structures, reducing runoff into rivers. The Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), with a staggering Rs 208,596.48 crore spent from 2019 to 2025, has claimed to have provided tap water to 15.69 crore rural households, covering 81% of rural India. If such claims are true, then by reducing dependence on polluted rivers for drinking water, JJM indirectly eases pressure on these ecosystems.
Broader water conservation efforts under the Jal Shakti Abhiyan: Catch the Rain (JSA: CTR) and Jal Sanchay Jan Bhagidari (JSJB) contribute indirectly to river health by reducing pollution sources. From March 2024 to March 2025, JSA: CTR recorded 41.66 lakh water-related works, including 13.02 lakh water conservation and rainwater harvesting projects, 3.09 lakh renovations of traditional water bodies, 5.35 lakh reuse and recharge structures, and 20.21 lakh watershed development projects. Uttar Pradesh led with 7.88 lakh works, followed by Karnataka (5.37 lakh) and Rajasthan (2.17 lakh). JSJB, launched in September 2024, achieved 27.40 lakh works by May 2025, with Telangana at 5.61 lakh, Rajasthan at 4.16 lakh, and Madhya Pradesh at 3.11 lakh.
These initiatives reduce pollution by capturing rainwater to prevent agricultural runoff laden with pesticides and fertilisers from entering rivers, restoring traditional water bodies to act as natural filters that trap sediments and contaminants, and recharging groundwater to lessen over-extraction from rivers, which concentrates pollutants. For example, revived stepwells in Rajasthan and recharged borewells in Telangana reduce sediment and chemical flows into nearby rivers like the Luni and Godavari.
However, their direct impact on the 311 polluted stretches remains unquantified, as the CPCB’s data lacks specific metrics tying these works to improved river water quality.
For millions who depend on rivers for drinking, irrigation, and cultural practices, the stakes are visceral. In Bihar, farmers along the polluted Burhi Gandak struggle with contaminated irrigation water, impacting crop yields and health. In West Bengal, fisherfolk along the Damodar River lament dwindling fish stocks, blaming toxic effluents from nearby factories. In Uttar Pradesh, farmers irrigating with polluted Yamuna water face crop failures and health risks. These human tolls underscore the urgency of effective action.
Yet, critics point to a litany of shortcomings and argue that the NMCG’s billions have yielded scant results: slow rollout of sewage treatment plants, with many operating below capacity; inadequate penalties for non-compliant industries; and persistent non-point pollution from agriculture and open defecation. The CPCB’s data shows no dramatic decline in polluted stretches, and the absence of comprehensive, real-time water quality metrics fuels scepticism about the impact of the billions spent. The CPCB’s static count of polluted stretches fuels scepticism, as does the absence of real-time water quality data to showcase tangible gains.
Defenders of the NMCG counter that river cleanup is a complex, long-term endeavour. They argue that cleaning rivers is a marathon, not a sprint. The 83% compliance rate among operational GPIs marks progress, and the 20 Central Monitoring Committee meetings signal robust oversight. JJM’s tap water coverage and Atal Bhujal’s groundwater recharge tackle root causes of river stress, while Community-driven efforts, like Rajasthan’s Ratri Choupals, Maharashtra’s Kar Jal Dindis or Uttar Pradesh’s Pani Pathshala, foster public ownership.
Still, without transparent, updated data on water quality improvements or a clear reduction in polluted stretches, these achievements risk being overshadowed by the scale of the crisis.
The Indo-Dutch Strategic Water Partnership’s high-tech approach, while promising, is a drop in the bucket compared to the NMCG’s billions. Does this mean limiting their transformative potential? Funded with Rs 5.98 crore in 2025, with its Centre of Excellence at IIT Delhi, it aims to bring innovation to the table, focusing on urban water management, artificial intelligence, and river modelling. It aims to develop scalable solutions, such as pollution abatement monitoring and river economy strategies. However, doesn’t its comparatively limited budget suggest it is a small piece of a much larger puzzle, unlikely to shift the needle significantly on its own?
Experts suggest that integrating local governance, stricter enforcement, and public awareness campaigns could amplify impact. For instance, the “Bhu-Neer” portal, launched in 2024 by the Central Ground Water Authority, streamlines groundwater extraction permits, but its scope excludes direct river cleanup. The broader challenge lies in aligning the efforts of states, industries, and communities under a unified, results-driven framework.
As India’s rivers continue to choke under the weight of pollution, the Rs 10,000 crore-plus investment demands scrutiny. The NMCG’s efforts are ambitious, but the persistent pollution of 279 rivers signals a gap between funds and outcomes. Faster project execution, robust enforcement, and measurable water quality improvements are critical to ensuring that these billions don’t vanish into the murky depths of India’s ailing rivers.
*Senior journalist
