In Varanasi, the Ganga foregrounds reimagining river governance beyond technocratic approaches, shaping social practices, governance responses, and urban planning
In Varanasi, daily routines along the ghats are closely aligned with the river’s physical and symbolic presence. Morning rituals, bathing practices, cremations, and boating activities unfold less through formal regulation and more through shared norms shaped by the river’s cultural centrality. Priests prepare for aarti, residents arrive with offerings, and boatmen adjust to changing water levels and flow conditions.
These patterns of behaviour are not formally enforced. However, they generate a form of social regulation in which the river functions as an organising reference point. Seasonal flooding, in particular, alters settlement patterns and prompts administrative response, reinforcing the river’s role in structuring urban contingency and civic preparedness. In August 2025, for example, severe flooding in Varanasi caused the Ganga to overflow, inundating low-lying areas, disrupting daily life and halting boat services. The state government responded by deploying relief teams, ensuring essential supplies, and activating round-the-clock monitoring.
The Ganga does not constitute a human citizen, nor can it be reduced to a passive natural resource; instead, it operates as a ‘civic actor’ that shapes social practices and informs institutional responses within the city.
If governance is understood as a process that shapes conduct and allocates responsibility, the river can be seen as performing an ordering role within the city. This raises the possibility of rivers functioning as civic actors that influence governance, shape decisions, and guide public responsibilities. In Varanasi, this dynamic is clearly evident. The Ganga does not constitute a human citizen, nor can it be reduced to a passive natural resource; instead, it operates as a ‘civic actor’ that shapes social practices and informs institutional responses within the city.
The Ganga’s civic role is most clearly visible in everyday urban life, where it shapes behaviour in public spaces rather than merely serving as a backdrop to cultural practices. Unlike in many cities, where public cleanliness is driven by regulation or penalties, efforts in Varanasi often rely on community participation. In October 2018, for instance, a group of 40 volunteers, including mountaineer Bachendri Pal, conducted a cleanliness drive along the Ganga to raise awareness about river pollution.
During and after flood events, debris removal is carried out through a combination of state-led programmes such as the Namami Gange Mission and local involvement. These efforts frequently align with government measures to curb industrial pollution and improve sewage systems and riverfront infrastructure, reflecting a convergence between public action and policy intervention.
The river also shapes the organisation and use of urban space, including cremation practices along the ghats. A National Geographic account documents how funeral rituals in Varanasi unfold continuously along the riverfront, reflecting the belief that immersion of ashes in the Ganga enables moksha (liberation). At the same time, these practices present governance challenges, including high wood consumption, pollution, and unequal access to cremation for lower-income groups. These dynamics indicate that civic behaviour in Varanasi is not only mediated through formal systems but is also structured around the river’s presence in everyday life.
The Ganga is central to Varanasi’s economy, with a significant share of the city’s activities directly or indirectly linked to the river. Between 2014 and 2025, Varanasi recorded over 451.60 million domestic and 2.87 million foreign tourist visits, underscoring the river’s role as a key economic driver.
The Ganga River also informs urban planning decisions, including road and drainage alignments, as well as the designation of riverfront ghats as heritage and planning zones.
The Ganga River also informs urban planning decisions, including road and drainage alignments, as well as the designation of riverfront ghats as heritage and planning zones. Infrastructure projects and redevelopment initiatives are often prioritised in relation to the river’s condition and framed in terms of its conservation. Programmes such as the Namami Gange Mission, launched in 2014 with an allocation of over INR 40,121 crore, reflect this policy focus. However, with only around 69 percent of funds utilised and continued pollution affecting water quality in several stretches, implementation gaps remain a key challenge.
Governance is conventionally understood as a system of rules and institutions through which the state regulates people, territory and resources, with agency primarily attributed to human actors and nature treated as an object of management. Anthropocene debates have further reinforced this framing by positioning nature largely in terms of use and exploitation.
The case of the Ganga complicates this distinction. The Ganga River does not merely respond to policy; it shapes governance outcomes through its material dynamics and social significance. Rising pollution levels, for instance, generate public pressure and demands for state action, positioning the river as a reference point through which accountability is articulated.
The Ganga River does not merely respond to policy; it shapes governance outcomes through its material dynamics and social significance.
In this context, governance becomes responsive to the river’s flow, flooding patterns and ecological condition, as well as to public perceptions linked to it. This situates the Ganga not as a passive resource but as a civic actor influencing policy priorities and institutional responses in Varanasi.
In 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court recognised the Ganga and Yamuna as legal persons, granting them rights, duties, and liabilities akin to a living entity. Although the Supreme Court subsequently stayed the decision, it marked a shift towards recognising nature within governance frameworks. Similar developments, such as the legal personhood accorded to the Whanganui River in New Zealand, reflect a broader global shift towards rethinking human–nature relationships in policy design.
In India, however, this shift has been uneven. River governance continues to rely largely on technocratic approaches, with limited integration of social and cultural dimensions that shape public behaviour. Campaigns have sought to mobilise participation through messaging such as “Swachh Ganga, Nirmal Ganga”, linking river conservation to civic responsibility.
A key example of this tension is the concept of environmental flows (e-flows), defined as the water regime required to sustain river ecosystems amid competing uses. In practice, institutions such as the Central Water Commission operationalise e-flows through fixed thresholds and volumetric targets. While necessary, this approach tends to treat the river as an infrastructural system, with limited attention to how it is experienced and used within urban contexts.
In Varanasi, river use is shaped by a range of practices that depend not only on water volume but also on perceived quality and continuity. A purely metrics-driven framework risks overlooking these dimensions, thereby constraining policy effectiveness. A more integrated approach would combine hydrological data with insights from local practices and community engagement, enabling a shift from narrowly technocratic management to more participatory and context-sensitive river governance.
Recognising the river’s role in governance does not imply moving beyond anthropocentric frameworks. The meanings attributed to the Ganga—through cultural practices and social norms—are mediated by human interpretation. As such, advocating for the river’s protection reflects a reconfiguration of anthropocentrism rather than its rejection.
The objective is not to replace human-centred governance, but to develop frameworks that take non-human dynamics seriously in shaping outcomes.
This, however, does not undermine the case for treating the Ganga as a civic actor. The objective is not to replace human-centred governance, but to develop frameworks that take non-human dynamics seriously in shaping outcomes. Reimagining governance in this context requires expanding the scope of decision-making to account for ecological systems alongside institutional and social considerations.
Varanasi illustrates how such an approach can operate in practice. The river’s influence on behaviour, public expectations and policy responses demonstrates that governance can remain human-led while being responsive to ecological conditions. This points to a more adaptive model of governance, where environmental processes are treated as integral to, rather than external to, urban decision-making.
Pragya Tiwari is a PhD scholar in Sociology at IIT Kharagpur, focusing on gendered spatial experiences, urban commons, and urban transformation.
Amrita Sen is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at IIT Kharagpur, working on environmental sociology and political ecology.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Pragya Tiwari is a PhD Research Scholar in Sociology with the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Her ...
Read More +
Dr. Amrita Sen is an Assistant Professor of Sociology with the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. Trained ...
Read More +
PREV
