The Hindu : End of a prolonged wrangle

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 14, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

End of a prolonged wrangle

THE CAUVERY RIVER Authority's latest order directing Karnataka to ensure for three more days from February 11(as stipulated by the Supreme Court on February 6) an average flow of 4,500 cusecs for Tamil Nadu at Mettur has, not surprisingly, left both the disputant States dissatisfied. The quantum which works out to a mere 2.8 tmcft over a week falls far short of the 10 tmcft Tamil Nadu said it needed, at the minimum, immediately to save at least a significant part of the standing rice (samba) crop raised over less-than-normal acreage and, as such, the Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, is "terribly disappointed". And her Karnataka counterpart, S.M. Krishna, is "unhappy" because, as he insists, the severely depleted storage in the four reservoirs in the Cauvery basin, being woefully inadequate for meeting his State's requirements, precludes any further release for Tamil Nadu. The rather prolonged wrangle between the two riparian States, which started with the first signs of a failing south-west monsoon in July-August last year and took on some avoidable streaks of bitterness, is attributable basically to the poor precipitation during both the south-west and north-east monsoons, with the evolving grave crisis posing a challenge as much to the political leadership of the two States over `distress sharing' as to the CRA, the institutional mechanism charged with the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the Tribunal's interim award of 1991. At the end of it all, with the CRA's February 10 order signalling the end of the row that saw the issue being shunted between the Supreme Court and the CRA for well over four months, one cannot help feeling that a more flexible, conciliatory and accommodative approach on the part of the two States — their political executives, to be precise — would have served the cause of optimal utilisation of scarce water resources better and the process itself would have been less painful and acrimony-free, apart of course from cutting down much of the delay that the litigatory route had necessarily entailed.

Of profound significance, from the standpoint of cracking the highly ticklish and vexed question of `distress sharing', is the clear message the Supreme Court has sought to convey to the basin States by the kind of importance it attached to the CRA as the most appropriate and statutorily mandated forum for settling contentious issues. The apex court almost invariably made its decisions on water release, at different stages, subject to the consideration and possible revision by the CRA and, what is more, frowned upon any deliberate attempt to defy or scuttle that institution's orders. Again, by giving the sort of CRA-related directions it did on this occasion — that the quorum rules stand relaxed, that the CRA's order shall have the sanctity of a court order and, that in the absence of a consensus, the Chairman's (Prime Minister's) order shall be final — the Court has in effect passed a sharp indictment on those who tried to scuttle the Authority's meetings by resorting to strategic absenteeism or tended to render the institutional mechanism less than effective through devious methods. The major weakness of the CRA in not having worked out a fair and reasonable arrangement for sharing water in a bad monsoon year came into sharp focus as never before this time and it is regrettable that the body, created in 1998, has not been able to clinch a decision on a formula the monitoring panel has evolved for a `pro rata' sharing. Its failure on this count has very much to do with the lack of political will on the part of the member-States, which in turn may be traced to their unwillingness to break free from the compulsions of realpolitik and rise above narrow partisan or parochial interests. One hopes that those who constitute the Authority, especially the Chief Ministers of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, will learn the right lessons and work in all earnestness for a viable and mutually beneficial formula for `distress sharing', a task that necessarily calls for understanding and constructive cooperation among the States.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

End of a prolonged wrangle

All for English

A relationship at odds

Who decides educational policies?

Is India losing the Gulf to China?