Opinion - Editorials   

Eminently implementable

No solution to a protracted and complex dispute is likely to please all sides equally. However, by all reasonable criteria — legal, historical, socio-economic, agronomic, and political — the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal is a just and equitable settlement of a highly contentious inter-State dispute. It is an issue that has defied all attempts at negotiation and mediation over half a century. It has raised political temperatures whenever the monsoon has threatened to let down the Cauvery basin States. It has triggered emotional, and at times militant and even violent, reactions in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the two main disputants. Although initial reactions suggest that Karnataka is the aggrieved party, a closer study of the details reveals that both disputants have substantive reasons to feel good about the final award, which has come 16 years after the Tribunal was constituted.

By asking the upper riparian State to make available — in specified "tentative monthly deliveries during a normal year" — 182 thousand million cubic feet of water to the lower riparian State, the Cauvery Tribunal has clearly met the minimum expectations of Tamil Nadu. The 192 tmcft to be released by Karnataka at the inter-State contact point includes (explicitly) 10 tmcft set aside for environmental purposes and (by implication) 7 tmcft earmarked for the Union Territory of Puducherry. However, Tamil Nadu will have another 25 tmcft of water from its catchments below Billigundulu and above Mettur. Importantly for Karnataka, the final order, unlike the 1991 interim award, is that the stipulated quantity of water should be made available at the Billigundulu gauge and water station located on the border between the two States. (The interim award required Karnataka to deliver 205 tmcft at the Mettur dam in Tamil Nadu.) The final award removes the possibility of disputes over conflicting claims of quantity released and quantity realised. The Billigundulu gauge station is maintained by the Central Water Commission and is of world class; the Central Government will henceforth be in a position to ensure proper monitoring of the monthly schedule of water releases.

A key feature of the Cauvery dispute, which made it seem intractable, was noted by the civil servant and scholar S. Guhan in his authoritative book, a Frontline publication, arguing for a conciliatory solution to the Cauvery dispute: "In a fundamental respect, it differs from other major river disputes in India, including those relating to the Narmada, the Krishna and the Godavari. While these disputes were mainly about the inter-State utilisation of hitherto untapped surplus waters, the dispute in the case of the Cauvery relates to the re-sharing of waters that are already being almost fully utilised in their totality." Evidently, a great deal hinges on the quantifiable definition of a `normal year.' The Cauvery Tribunal worked out its final award after determining that the utilisable quantity of waters of the Cauvery at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site, "on the basis of 50% dependability," was 740 tmcft. It then proceeded to allocate 270 tmcft to Karnataka, 419 tmcft to Tamil Nadu, 30 tmcft to Kerala, and 7 tmcft to Puducherry. While 10 tmcft was reserved for environmental protection, another 4 tmcft was set aside to account for escapages into the sea.

There is one possibly vulnerable aspect of the final award — Clause VII relating to deficit-sharing, which somewhat vaguely stipulates that in case the yield of the Cauvery basin is "less in a distress year, the allocated shares shall be proportionately reduced" among the three States and Puducherry. Considering that the Cauvery dispute flares up on the ground only in distress years, the Tribunal should have come up with a clearer and more elaborate deficit-sharing clause that does not leave room for doubt or misinterpretation. This can still be done when the matter comes up before the Tribunal, as it almost certainly will, for "explanation or guidance" during the three month review period provided in Section 5(1) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

The Cauvery Tribunal can be criticised for the inordinate time it took to come up with its final award (perhaps deserving the sobriquet `The Long Tribunal'). It suffered its share of disagreements and changes of personnel but, happily in the end, its award was unanimous. A divided verdict would have badly damaged the credibility of the award, and prompted one or the other State to debunk it. While Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are at liberty to explore and pursue available legal avenues for redressing any grievance relating to the Tribunal's final award, they must seize this breakthrough moment to settle all subsidiary issues amicably and in a fair and intelligent manner within the final award framework. This is especially important as in the past chauvinist elements on the fringe have sought to inflame passions by exploiting such inter-State disputes, and thus set baneful agendas for mainstream parties. Political leaders of both States would do well to take the cue from some fine, long-sighted initiatives taken by citizen sector organisations with the proclaimed aim of reaching an amicable and mutually beneficial solution, without bringing chauvinism into play. The Cauvery Family, formed in 2003, has already worked out an agenda that can serve as a template for implementing the settlement. Comprising farmers, technical experts, academics, and other stakeholders of the two disputant Cauvery States, the forum held nine meetings and contributed in no small measure to keeping in check those seeking to make political capital of the dispute. Technical experts have a clear role to play in implementing sustainable solutions relevant to the utilisation of the Cauvery waters. Political wisdom lies in allowing and encouraging them to do so.

Related Stories:
Cauvery Tribunal gives unanimous, final award

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Eminently implementable
From mega surge to dual rollback
Missing facts on Kashmir disappearances
Rags to Rolls Royces — Huaxi's story
Corrections and Clarifications
Criminals in uniform
BMC polls

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu