Given the scale of the violence and arson in Karnataka, the needle of suspicion points to the involvement of politicians in the State (” >Bengaluru quiet after crackdown ”, Sept.14).
However, it is also to be fairly conceded that the imbalance in the sharing of Cauvery water, which is detrimental to the interests of Karnataka, is at the root of the conflict. Both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka need to be pragmatic and work out a practical and equitable formula instead of sticking to an archaic accord which does not factor in climate change.
S. Srinivasan,
Chennai
I belong to Kodagu, or Coorg, the source of the Cauvery. To us the river is a mother, a life-giver and a protector. I pose this question to those who are aggressively propagating the slogan “Cauvery Nammadu ”: Where were you when locals in Kodagu protested against the large-scale felling of trees in the region in 2013? — The Hindu , (“ >Work on power line begins in Kodagu amid people’s concerns ”, Nov.12, 2013).
Some might say that this is the price one pays for development. But the irreparable damage caused to green cover and disturbance to wildlife has, not surprisingly, led to news of drought in Kodagu.
It is shocking that in just two years, an area that in its history had never heard of a drought, is now staring at a harsh year ahead. Acute water shortage in this catchment area is only going to get worse because of the systematic stripping of the Western Ghats. Burning buses and indulging in arson are never going to solve the real issue. The media should highlight these issues in such a way that the so-called “owners of the Cauvery” know that you reap what you sow.
Renuka Devayya,
Bengaluru
In the name of the Cauvery, the violence unleashed in Karnataka should make us bow our heads in shame. The festering issue around an intermittent river such as the Cauvery shows that the Centre should think in terms of the nationalisation of major rivers and dams. With climate change affecting the monsoon, the government needs to think ahead and push States to have separate projects for drinking and agricultural purposes.
Maheshkumar T.,
Mulanur, Tamil Nadu
In its 1931 judgment on the Delaware river dispute between the State of New Jersey and the State of New York, the Supreme Court of the United States observed: “[A] river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have power over it.” This was precisely the essence of the Supreme Court of India’s direction to the Karnataka government to release 15,000 cusecs of water per day to Tamil Nadu till September 20. However, the arson and rioting that followed has brought to light the short-sightedness of policymakers in bringing the adjudication and arbitration efforts to fruition. Instead, it has reiterated the need for a permanent and dynamic riparian dispute resolution mechanism in the country (Editorial – “ >Sharing without caring ”, Sept.14). While the Union government should be applauded for making efforts to sort out the problem between principal players through the institutional mechanism of the Cauvery River Authority, it cannot escape the accusation of allowing the dispute to go unchecked, leading to undesirable and dangerous ramifications. This is particularly true after its failure to avoid a face-off between Punjab and Haryana over the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna link canal.
‘The Cauvery Tribunal’s 2007 award should be revisited to recalibrate the share of each riparian State based on a rainfall-linked formula.
Shreyans Jain,
New Delhi
