Today's Paper Archive Classifieds Subscriptions RSS Feeds Site Map ePaper Mobile Apps Social
SEARCH

Opinion » Lead

Updated: October 16, 2012 00:11 IST

Bridge over the river Cauvery

Ramaswamy R. Iyer
Share  ·   Comment (11)   ·   print   ·  

Amid the grandstanding by political leaders, it is the Basin farmers who must take the lead in removing misperceptions about the Tribunal’s award

The Cauvery dispute has taken a turn for the worse. Confrontationism prevails, and we seem to be witnessing a return to the spirit of 1992, though not to violence of that order. What has gone wrong? This article is an analysis and an appeal.

Let us go back to 2007 and imagine that on the announcement of the Final Order of the Cauvery Tribunal, the disputant States did not file Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court but only submitted clarificatory petitions to the Tribunal. Alternatively, let us imagine that the States did file SLPs before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court refused to admit the SLPs on the ground that there was a bar on the jurisdiction of the courts. In either case, the Tribunal would have proceeded to deal with the clarificatory petitions and might have given a Further Report in about six to eight months or perhaps a year, i.e., by early 2008. The Final Order and the Further Report would then have been gazetted. The Cauvery Management Board mandated by the Tribunal would have been set up and might have become fully operational by mid-2008. Thus, there would have been a machinery to deal with situations of drought and distress like the present one. Unfortunately, that imaginary scenario did not happen. The Tribunal was (or claimed to be) unable to deal with the clarificatory petitions because the status of the Final Order itself was plunged into uncertainty when the States went to the Supreme Court with SLPs.

The Supreme Court did two inexplicable things. First, it admitted the SLPs forthwith without any explicit consideration of the bar on the jurisdiction of the courts provided for by Article 262 and incorporated in the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956; and second, having admitted the SLPs in 2007, it has unaccountably failed to take them up for hearing in five years time.

Shortage sharing

Turning to the Tribunal’s Final Order, it failed to include a method or formula to deal with the crucial problem that lies at the heart of the Cauvery dispute, namely shortage-sharing in distress years. In years of normal rainfall, more water flows from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu than the quantum laid down by the Interim Order or the Final Order. The problem of how much should flow from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu becomes contentious only in years of low flows. This should have been central to the Tribunal’s Final Order, but the Tribunal offered only generalities, and left it to the proposed Cauvery Management Board to deal with the problem. Further, was it really necessary for the Tribunal to take the view that the SLPs to the Supreme Court made it impossible for it to proceed with the clarificatory petitions? Why could it not have heard those petitions and given a Further Report? The view that the pendency of the SLPs prevented it from functioning was a self-limiting one taken by the Tribunal itself.

Legal positions

The State governments and the State politicians have contributed to the impasse by adopting strident, confrontationist postures and rhetoric instead of conciliatory, solution-seeking approaches; and by rousing and not calming popular anger. Both State governments must be blamed for this; neither has made any effort to see the other’s case.

It needs to be added that both governments have taken untenable legal positions. Tamil Nadu started by taking its stand on long-established prior use, which is a relevant but not a clinching argument. However, being a lower riparian it had eventually to accept realistically that it must learn to manage with reduced flows. Karnataka persists in holding fast implicitly to the assumed primacy of upper riparian rights, for which there is no basis in national or international law. There is no meeting point between those two divergent positions.

The institutional arrangements are not working. The Tribunal’s Award has no sanctity. The Cauvery River Authority, presided over by the Prime Minister, is hardly an “Authority.” The only institution with any authority seems to be the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu keeps knocking at its doors, and now Karnataka is reported to be filing a review petition. One hopes that this process will reach finality soon.

The Central government has proved to be a weak and ineffective force, unable or unwilling to play its constitutional and statutory roles.

What can one say about the propriety of Central Cabinet Ministers becoming partisan advocates and implicitly questioning their Prime Minister’s decision?

In such situations, one would expect intellectuals and persons of goodwill in either State to give wise counsel to the people, remove misperceptions, calm down excitement and anger, and promote goodwill and understanding. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much evidence of any such thing happening.

One does not know what advice the eminent Counsel representing Tamil Nadu and Karnataka give privately to their respective clients; that is confidential and privileged communication. One can only hope that they do advise their clients against holding legally wrong and indefensible positions, against being confrontationist, and against defying judicial and constitutional authorities.

Cauvery family

The one positive element in this entire unedifying spectacle of State against State and people against people has been the Cauvery Family — a loose and informal group of Cauvery basin farmers from both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu — which is now known internationally. Unfortunately, while it has brought about remarkable mutual understanding and goodwill between the farmers of the two States, it has not so far been able — in spite of several meetings — to arrive at an agreed settlement, including a distress-sharing formula, which can be presented to the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. Even the understanding and goodwill achieved by it is under threat in the present situation of conflict and hostility between the two States, at both official and non-official levels.

In the light of that analysis, what needs to be done? I would submit the following set of appeals for consideration:

1. To the Cauvery Family: Please continue and accelerate your work, promote understanding and goodwill and correct misperceptions in either State, and come up quickly with (a) minor adjustments to make the Tribunal’s award acceptable to both States, and (b) a formula or method for shortage-sharing in years of low flows.

2. To the Tribunal: Regardless of the pendency of the SLPs in the Supreme Court, please take up the clarificatory petitions and issue a Further Report as soon as possible.

3. To the Central government: In order to enable the Tribunal to function, please fill the vacancies in it immediately.

4. To the disputant State governments: Please withdraw your SLPs from the Supreme Court and press the Tribunal for a Further Report.

5. To the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Please take up the SLPs for hearing without further loss of time (assuming that the SLPs are not withdrawn).

6. To the eminent Counsel representing the two State governments: Please consider advising your respective clients against adopting legally or constitutionally untenable positions, or going against the spirit of federalism, or taking confrontationist public postures that make the dispute even more intractable than it is already, or persisting in endless litigation. I hope that this appeal will not be considered improper.

7. To the intellectuals and respected public personalities in either State: Please clarify issues, correct misperceptions and errors of understanding, and promote goodwill and friendly relations between the two neighbouring States, both at the governmental and at the people-to-people levels.

8. To the media (print, TV): Please adhere scrupulously to fair and objective reporting norms, and play your part in promoting goodwill and understanding.

It will be noticed that the appeal to the Cauvery Family has been put first in this list of recommendations. That is an indication of the importance that I attach to that impressive initiative. It must not be allowed to fail. It is true that any understanding or formula arrived at by the Cauvery Family will have no legal force; it will have to be placed before the State governments. However, if the farmers of the two States are able to present an agreed formulation, it will surely carry great weight.

(Ramaswamy R. Iyer is a former Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India.)

More In: Lead | Opinion

A very fair and realisable solution. The author has provided a well thought out solution to this difficult problem. I hope better sense previals over all involved to listen to this approach which is fair to all. There is no alternative but to discuss and increase our understanding of the other party.

from:  vishwanath
Posted on: Oct 17, 2012 at 22:35 IST

@ Dinesh, we do understand that natural resource must be shared etc etc... But, keep
in mind that Karnataka is not saying that it will never share water. Its just saying we
dont have sufficient to share. Will you help your neighbour with food, when you
yourself are starving! It should also be noted that TN is indeed getting larger share of
water compared to Karnataka. We also know the fact that during normal rains, more
water is released to TN. Why dont TN store the excess water in a dam, instead of
allowing it flow off?!
Main purpose of KRS dam is to act as reserve to control water usage for irrigation,
drinking etc etc... and not with an intent to stop water flow to other state.

from:  Mohan
Posted on: Oct 17, 2012 at 21:21 IST

Thank you for a logical article. I just want to clarify that the final
tribunal award does lay down a formula for water sharing during
distress. We neednt re-invent the wheel. Implementation of the tribunal
award in the right spirit is the way out

from:  Dr.Himanshu M.
Posted on: Oct 17, 2012 at 19:22 IST

It is strange we do not want to accept reality.
The reality is ,while the quantity of water available through Cauvery
river in total remains stable, the consumption has increased.
A) While farmers produced crops once a year in 1950s, the same land
owner produces 4 crops per year.
B) Bangalore water supply is derived from Cauvery.
C) Chennai gets water from Veeranum,which gets from Kollidam,-Cauvery.
D) Additional lands are brought into agriculture,in both TN &
Karnataka.
There is NO water management/ control existing in INDIA as a whole.
A country sourrounded by water on 3 sides should go for water
desalination for all coastal area requirements for drinking purposes.
The legislatures & so called experts have failed to recognise the
existing available solution.
People these days buy mineral water. Most can afford the cost of
desalinated water.Donot go for big plants. Go for small ones for local
consumption to avoid high costs on distribution net works.
R.Natarajan

from:  R.Natarajan
Posted on: Oct 17, 2012 at 15:54 IST

This is a crucial point in the whole argument:
"However, being a lower riparian it had eventually to accept
realistically that it must learn to manage with reduced flows."

TN knows this but is choosing to ignore it. What is the benefit to
Karnataka if it cannot have any control of the waters.

TN always assumes the position of "Attack is the best form of defence".

from:  Senthil Kumar
Posted on: Oct 17, 2012 at 12:10 IST

All said is true and correct. Some of the farmers in both states of the
cauvery delta, have turned politicians and have become too greedy.
They dont see the reality and the honest farmer is misled by them. There are enough solutions but these greedy farmer-politicians wont listen to reasoning.

from:  P.Tauro
Posted on: Oct 17, 2012 at 08:05 IST

Though i dont belong to either riparian states, i stand beside karnataka at this time of distress where the basin disticts of kaveri are in severe stress and are declared as draught hit.TN should give up their aggressive and emotional politics in dealing with inter state river waters,be it ,karnataka or kerala. It should respect the right of people of karnataka to have drinking water,as it is more important to have drinking water than to divert it for agricultural needs.As a distress formula 2/3 rd of water left after water supply needs can be given to TN.

from:  vishnu
Posted on: Oct 16, 2012 at 22:57 IST

The ongoing disputes in India are politically motivated among the political parties rather than motivated by education and awareness among the people for which the river cauvery is an example.analysis takes us to the view that disputes are creating unsettled problems on both sides making the subject a hot topic to be talked in media and disputes are not getting settled by the political parties but their intensity is being enhanced.

from:  syed.chand basha
Posted on: Oct 16, 2012 at 22:54 IST

We, as Indians, should share and live. It applies to every body. It is rather very amusing when we read about Karnataka taking up its case when they want Maharashtra to share Krishna river water for its use.
How much of water is going waste through the West flowing rivers of Karnataka and Kerala!! We are having such a central govt' which inspite of repeated taking up does not have the political will to accede to the question of making all rivers as National Property and linking all Indian rivers. The potential this project(river interlinking) has in so many ways is unimaginable, as per my knowledge goes.

from:  Shyam.
Posted on: Oct 16, 2012 at 20:37 IST

This article makes sense. but I'm responding to the above comment that TN is behaving with SUPERIOR attitude. First of all, river is a natuaral resource. It has to be shared equally between the all the states the river passes through. Now if one state built a big dam on the river upstream and saying that we have stored the water to meet our requirements till next rainfall season and wont be able to release water downstream. we dont care what will happen to the people in downstream. That seems against nature. isn't it?.

from:  Dinesh Kumar
Posted on: Oct 16, 2012 at 20:27 IST

Finally, I see an article written based on logic rather than emotions.
Both TN and Karnataka have to keep their ego aside and come up with practical solutions. TN has to stop behaving with Superior attitude and treat Karnataka as an equal partner and Karnataka has to make its people understand the case if it is being treated unfairly and present it in a logical point by point manner so that even Primary school student should be able to understand the issue. One thing everyone should keep in mind that today's reality is different from tomorrow's reality. Both parties should understand each other's problems. I am from Karnataka and I feel that TN has always used strong arm tactics in making Karnataka into submission using its Political power at the center and our own govt. does a crappy work in presenting the case and the MPs representing Karnataka are the most useless bunch of people seen anywhere in the world.

from:  srikrishna bhagwan
Posted on: Oct 16, 2012 at 02:05 IST
Show all comments
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in Lead

The politics of quota and merit

There is unquestionable value in a general policy of reservation because it attacks caste-based inequities that have proved so damaging to our society; but through an ever-expanding scheme of reservation, we have lost sight of what our aims were in the first place »