Sharing of distress

THE BLAND `DIRECTIVE' the Cauvery River Authority issued to Karnataka after its October 10 meeting - that it ``ensure inflows at Mettur as stipulated by the Tribunal'' in its interim order - has obviously not come up to the expectations of Tamil Nadu which has been pressing for a time-bound release of water, for what it says are its immediate requirements to save the paddy crop in the delta. A dissatisfied Tamil Nadu lost no time in approaching the Supreme Court for urgent relief. Incidentally, the `directive' itself, which figured in an official release, appeared to be an afterthought, since by all accounts there was no indication to that effect in the course of the deliberations at the meeting. If anything, the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee's concluding remarks suggested a virtual rejection of Tamil Nadu's case for immediate relief, taking note of the recent rains in the delta region; he however assured the State that, should a situation of distress arise, the Authority would be called at short notice to consider providing of relief. Irrespective of whether there is anything more to it than meets the eye in this perceived divergence in response, the fact remains that such ambiguities and lack of transparency showed the CRA in poor light, apart from giving room for unnecessary controversies and wrangles between member States.

Admittedly, the precipitation during the south-west monsoon has been substantially below normal in the Cauvery basin catchment and the upper riparian has to cope with a looming threat of drought in many districts, a grim prospect that places it under tremendous pressure for water conservation. On the other side, Tamil Nadu has its own difficulties, given the depleted storage in Mettur, and is anxious to ensure adequate and timely supply of water for the main samba paddy crop. At the core of the problem is, as it has always been whenever the monsoon played truant, the sharing of `distress' among the riparian States, especially between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. And this is an issue that needs to be sorted out by negotiations, with both sides adopting an attitude of give-and-take. Even the Tribunal, while mandating (by its interim order of June 21, 1991) that Karnataka make available 205 tmcft of water in a year and according to a set timetable, has left this crucial question unsettled, although it has broadly commended sharing on a `pro rata' basis. If Tamil Nadu has been anxious to get assured supplies of water within a timeframe to suit its cropping seasons - this indeed was the rationale behind the Tribunal-ordained schedule - Karnataka has been extremely wary of any suggestion that may ultimately require its adhering to what it considered to be an ``impracticable'' and ``unrealistically rigid'' timetable, which of course is understandable, given the State's basic objections to the Tribunal's order itself.

As it happens, the Authority, created at the behest of the apex court in 1998 to ensure the implementation of the Tribunal's fiat, has not so far been really tested on this vital question of `distress sharing' and, perhaps for this reason, it has not chosen to apply its mind seriously to evolving a mutually acceptable formula. Tamil Nadu, now under an AIADMK regime, has articulated serious reservations about the effectiveness of the CRA, as at present constituted, and the party supremo, Ms. Jayalalithaa, swears by a non-political empowered body of technical personnel for the monitoring assignment. In fact, the new Government's lack of faith in the CRA was manifest from the very beginning, as witnessed in its initial reluctance to approach the body for relief and its hurried filing of a suit in the Supreme Court. In the very nature of things, the CRA's present composition, with the Prime Minister at the head and the Chief Ministers of basin States as members, seems to be the best bet. But, much depends on the way the flexibility which the involvement of heads of governments provides - a definite advantage - is actually used by the players at a given time and, more specifically, on how non-parochial and accommodative they are in `distress sharing'.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : U.N. and a symbolic peace prize
Next     : The task ahead