Kanpur’s tanneries and the Ganga: Why consistent pollution control matters

The Ganga at Kanpur has carried an uncomfortable contradiction for decades. On one hand, there are environmental laws, treatment plants and agencies responsible for keeping industrial pollution under control. On the other, untreated or inadequately treated wastewater has continued to find its way into the river.

A recent research paper, “Tanneries, pollution, and water quality in the Ganges in Kanpur, India: a stochastic analysis” by Amitrajeet A. Batabyal and Hamid Beladi, looks at this familiar problem from a different perspective. Rather than asking only whether regulations exist, the authors ask what happens when regulation and non-compliance constantly pull the river in opposite directions.

Their argument is simple but important: a river does not become cleaner simply because rules are in place. What matters is whether those rules are followed consistently.

A river caught between regulation and pollution

Kanpur is a major centre of the leather industry, with hundreds of tanneries, particularly in the Jajmau area. Leather processing uses chemicals such as chromium and sulphides, generating wastewater that can be highly polluting if it is not treated properly. Over the years, inadequately treated tannery wastewater has contributed to contamination of the Ganga around the city.

A system is already in place to control this pollution. Tanneries are required to treat their wastewater before it reaches the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) at Jajmau. With a reported capacity of 36 million litres a day, the plant is designed to treat wastewater from the industrial cluster. Regulatory agencies, including the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, are responsible for monitoring compliance.

However, the presence of treatment infrastructure has not eliminated industrial pollution. The research paper points to instances of illegal discharge and non compliance. It cites the National Green Tribunal’s action in 2019 against 22 tanneries, which were fined Rs. 280 crore for dumping chromium laden wastewater into the Ganga.

The authors describe this as a contest between two forces. Regulation can improve water quality, while non compliance can cause it to deteriorate. The balance between these forces determines how quickly, or whether, the river recovers.

Why consistency matters

The paper’s central message is that improvements in water quality must be sustained. If industries comply with regulations for a period but later return to polluting practices, improvements may be reversed. This makes pollution control unpredictable and slows the recovery of the river.

The authors’ mathematical model shows that when the likelihood of improvement is only marginally higher than the likelihood of deterioration, achieving a desired level of water quality can take a very long time. If improvement does not consistently outweigh deterioration, recovery may remain out of reach.

This has implications for the way river restoration is understood. Sewage treatment plants, CETPs, pipelines and monitoring stations are important parts of pollution control, but their presence does not guarantee that pollutants will be kept out of the river.

From periodic inspections to continuous accountability

In Kanpur, one of the challenges is identifying violations that may occur between regulatory inspections. Regular inspections are important, but they may not capture every instance of illegal discharge or inadequate treatment.

Continuous monitoring of industrial effluent, supported by independent verification, can help identify unusual discharges and repeated violations earlier. Information from individual tanneries could also be linked with data from the CETP and the river. For instance, a sudden change in the volume or pollution levels of wastewater entering the treatment plant could help regulators identify where the change originated.

Monitoring also needs to go beyond checking whether a tannery is connected to the CETP. It must establish whether the wastewater it sends for treatment consistently meets the required standards.

Making compliance information accessible to regulators, researchers and local communities could further strengthen accountability. Transparency would allow different stakeholders to assess whether pollution control measures are working and make repeated violations more difficult to overlook.

Cleaning the Ganga means fixing the system

The experience of Kanpur’s tanneries points to a wider challenge in environmental regulation. Across India, pollution control often involves setting standards, creating infrastructure and assigning responsibilities to regulatory agencies. The more difficult task is ensuring that these arrangements work consistently on the ground.

The paper’s analysis highlights that river recovery is not automatic. The authors also note that future research should examine situations in which pollution becomes so severe that restoring water quality becomes increasingly difficult or costly. This underlines the importance of preventing pollution before it reaches such levels.

For Kanpur, this means strengthening the entire pollution control system rather than relying on the CETP alone. Tanneries need effective preliminary treatment and continuous compliance monitoring. CETP performance needs independent verification, while regulators need timely and reliable data to identify violations. Penalties must also be predictable and proportionate.

The research by Batabyal and Beladi brings attention to the gap between pollution control infrastructure and its implementation. For Kanpur, the challenge is not simply to establish treatment facilities but to ensure that industries comply with standards, monitoring remains credible and pollution control continues over time. Only then can improvements in wastewater treatment translate into lasting improvements in the health of the Ganga.