Tale of one river revered by millions as Mother YET Dangerously Polluted.

2. Key points Disciplinary framework. Limited Scope for a fuller understanding of water and our behavioral and management responses in relation to human and the biotic community. Absence of a research agenda within development studies on culture/religion and development. Adoption of a rights-based framework � little cogency for people whose cultural systems emphasize collective duty and responsibility instead of individual rights. Water resource management can benefit from the new knowledge about the overlap between culturally inspired social ethics and the science of ecology.

6. Yamuna begins her pristine journey in the lap of Himalayas

9. Rivers in transition: Definition of a River/Water for a global ethical code Water as a property, product and commodity vs. water as a common good or the many layered meanings of Water. (E.g. Qur�an describes water as the source of all life and a free gift of God) River as an economic resource vs. River as the �bloodstream of the biosphere and the sociosphere�. (Falkenmark). River as an abstraction vs. River as a place. River as �an observed fluid� vs. River as a prime source of imagination. (Illich) River valued as a transcendent symbol vs. River as a tactile, embodied experience. Scientific and decision making domain and the cultural domain, both fail to ask the vital ontological question: where is the river? Lack of acknowledgment towards the failure of our thinking the river.

11. The rancid countenance of adharma

18. What are we missing? Allocating water � allocating life (equitable upstream/downstream balancing of water needs and interests, equitable pollution loading, ethics of intergenerational attention, ethics of respect for and protection of resilience of the river. Altering fluxes of water � affects on the visual, functional and ecological functioning of the system. Water in its own right a component of the landscape Efforts to build societal ability to manage water as the bloodstream of both the biosphere and sociosphere (Falkenmark).

19. What are we missing?

20. What are we missing? Cultural component in ecosystems-based water management based on cultural practices and to integrate this in water policy practices, in educational curricula of engineering and water management institutions, and in communities.

21. What are our challenges? Epistemological paradigm shift: �grand narrative� vs. the �plurality of heterogenous claims to knowledge� and plurality of approaches to questions of nature of nature and of governance. (Blatter & Ingram). Business as usual vs Making water everybody�s business. (CSE) Rights as well as Duties for a shared watercourse ethical code. Disciplinary and technological approach vs a cultural approach that propagates social learning through bottom-up education and communication functions and at the same time promotes top-down high level applied research through industry and technology participation. New tools and techniques emanating from religio-cultural ethics for promoting stakeholder participation in decision making and for knowledge and experience transfer among institutions and organizations.

23. Discussion Questions How can we develop a more ethically durable relationship with the river? What are the potential resources? Who are the potential actors? What is the potential method? In what way and to what extent can cosmologic, religious and cultural meanings of water and physical, emotional and imaginative interactions with rivers support and inform scientific endeavors to clean our rivers? To what extent can the scientific domain and policy makers take account of theoretical, practical and cultural considerations such as beliefs, local knowledge, myths, representations, rituals, customs and traditions apart form the physical aspects of the resources such as hydrogeology, topography and climatic conditions? 4. In what way and to what extent do professionals interact with non-professionals or non-epistemic communities in the use (or misuse) of technical and professional information? How can scientific findings or technical information (e.g. mathematical hydrological modeling etc) in the professionalized conduct of water resource development justify the effort of assimilating such knowledge and modifying the individual modes of action? 5. How and to what extent can participation of women contribute to the cognitive, motivational, awareness generation and hence behavioral changes towards our treatment of, care for and appreciation of our rivers? 6. How can we develop a knowledge network amongst scientists, government, environmentalists, journalists and religious/cultural groups? Potential areas : a) ecologically oriented river clean up missions with a religiously/culturally-sensitive approach b) research and integration into policy to break barriers between disciplines and society and c) role played by International Organizations?