A recent audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has cast renewed scrutiny on the condition of the Ganga in Uttarakhand, raising uncomfortable but necessary questions about how India approaches river rejuvenation.The findings are stark. According to the performance audit of the Namami Gange Programme in the state, the level of total coliform bacteria increased 32-fold between Devprayag and Har Ki Pauri in Haridwar over a stretch of just 93 kilometres. The audit attributes this sharp deterioration primarily to untreated sewage entering the river from towns along the way.The report further found that 12 of 37 sewage treatment plants (32%) inspected during joint inspections were discharging untreated sewage, largely because treatment capacity was inadequate or drains were not properly tapped.Even more revealing is another finding: 21 sewage treatment plants across seven towns were not connected to any households, effectively rendering them non-functional despite having been built.These numbers are not merely technical details. They reveal a structural weakness in the way river-cleaning programmes are implemented.A reminder in RishikeshI was reminded of this recently while visiting Rishikesh, one of India’s most spiritually resonant towns. Here the Ganga descends from the Himalayas into the plains, and millions of people arrive each year seeking reflection, healing and renewal. The town is globally recognised as the world’s yoga capital.Precisely because of this extraordinary spiritual significance, its upkeep should command the highest civic priority. Yet, a walk through parts of the town today reveals a more complicated reality. In several areas one encounters uneven waste management, stressed civic infrastructure, increasing traffic congestion and visible pressures created by rapidly rising tourism.The contrast between the spiritual stature of the town and the condition of some of its public spaces is difficult to ignore. This is not merely a municipal issue. It reflects the cumulative effects of growing visitor numbers, infrastructure that has not kept pace with demand, and fragmented responsibilities across institutions tasked with managing the town and the river.Seen through this lens, the audit’s findings begin to make sense.Infrastructure without systemsThe challenge identified by the audit is not the absence of projects or funding.Over the past decade, the Namami Gange programme has financed numerous sewage treatment plants, riverfront development projects and monitoring initiatives across the Ganga basin.But the audit suggests that infrastructure creation has often outpaced the systems needed to make that infrastructure work.When treatment plants are built but remain disconnected from household sewer networks, they become symbolic infrastructure rather than functioning public utilities. When treatment capacity does not match the volume of sewage generated by expanding towns, untreated waste inevitably finds its way into the river.And when environmental monitoring systems lack transparency or credible accreditation, it becomes harder to assess whether river-cleaning efforts are genuinely working.The audit notes, for instance, that the state’s pollution monitoring laboratory did not secure accreditation from the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories within the project period. Such gaps weaken the credibility of environmental monitoring systems that are meant to track the health of the river.Rivers mirror the cities that line themThe 32-fold increase in coliform levels between Devprayag and Har Ki Pauri illustrates a fundamental ecological principle. Rivers are cumulative systems. Their health reflects the sanitation performance of the settlements along their banks. Even if water quality remains relatively good in the upper Himalayan stretches, repeated sewage inflows from towns downstream can quickly degrade the river.Data from the Central Pollution Control Board shows similar patterns across several river basins in India: pollution levels rise sharply as rivers pass through densely populated urban stretches. The implication is straightforward but often overlooked in policy debates. Rivers cannot be cleaned at the river’s edge. They must be cleaned within the cities and towns that discharge into them.The governance challengeThe experience of Uttarakhand therefore points to a deeper governance challenge. River rejuvenation cannot succeed through engineering projects alone.It requires coordinated urban management: sewer networks that actually connect households, treatment plants designed with realistic capacity, credible environmental monitoring, and strong coordination between municipal authorities, state agencies and national programmes.In places like Rishikesh, the challenge is intensified by tourism. According to data from the Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board, the town receives millions of visitors annually. Without corresponding investments in sanitation systems, waste management and urban mobility, such rapid growth inevitably places stress on local infrastructure and on the river itself.A civic compact for sacred townsYet the story need not end in pessimism. Rishikesh also presents an opportunity. As one of the world’s most recognisable spiritual destinations and a gateway to the Ganga’s upper basin, the town could become a model for how sacred geographies are managed in the 21st century.Doing so would require a renewed civic compact: stronger urban management, responsible tourism practices and greater stewardship by residents, institutions, businesses and visitors alike.Sacred places deserve not only reverence in words but care in practice. For towns like Rishikesh and for the Ganga that defines them, the challenge is not simply environmental. It is civic. Because in the end, rivers do not respond to programmes alone. They respond to systems that consistently work.Sanjeev Jha is a water and sanitation practitioner and public policy analyst focused on evidence-based urban governance and sustainable environmental solutions.