The Hindu : Need for statesmanship

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Sep 21, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Need for statesmanship

KARNATAKA'S SNAP DECISION to "suspend" the release of Cauvery water for Tamil Nadu — whatever quantum it has been letting out from the Kabini reservoir since the Supreme Court's September 3 interim order — has given a new and disturbing twist to the ongoing battle between the two States over the sharing of the admittedly poor storages in the four reservoirs in the river basin. For Tamil Nadu and its farmers, it means that whatever contingency plans they had worked out for raising at least a limited main paddy (Samba) crop stand jeopardised. The first blow came when the Cauvery River Authority scaled down the quantum of release from 1.25 tmcft a day (determined by the apex court) to 0.8 tmcft till October end. Now, with Karnataka downing the shutters of the Kabini dam from where water was being released, all the calculations of Tamil Nadu have inevitably been upset, with uncertainty looming large over water availability. For its part, the Karnataka Government — anxious as it is to avoid the impression of acting in defiance of the orders of the Supreme Court and the CRA — insists that the stoppage of release is only `temporary', necessitated by the "explosive" law and order situation prevailing in the Cauvery basin districts in the wake of an agitating farmer's alleged suicide by drowning in the Kabini dam.

Legalistically speaking, it is perhaps arguable that Karnataka's action would not entail `contempt of court' since what is not being complied with is only an order of the CRA (a non-judicial body created under a statute) and not that of the apex court — the one that stood automatically superseded by the CRA's September 8 decision. Whether the contempt charge sustains or not, the Karnataka Government would be hard put to justify its position before the Judiciary when Tamil Nadu raises the issue, particularly if the official data the apex court has sought on water releases (by Karnataka) since September 3 revealed significant shortfalls vis-a-vis the quantities determined first by the court and then by the CRA. But the dangerous implications of a Government, for whatever reason, circumventing inconvenient court injunctions or statutory obligations cannot be glossed over. A section of the farmers and some organisations known for their chauvinistic mindset have been up in arms (right from the day the apex court directed water release), resorting even to intimidatory forms of protest, with the climactic `suicide' taking on shades of an emotional blackmail. Clearly, the situation demanded a delicate handling and a prompt intervention with a strategy that had a judicious mix of persuasion and deterrence. But the S.M. Krishna regime let things drift, and now by deciding to suspend water release it has rendered itself vulnerable to the charge of succumbing to the coercive tactics of chauvinistic elements.

At the same time, it has to be said that the patently confrontationist approaches of the disputant States and also the palpable mistrust between the two State Governments and between Tamil Nadu and the Centre at the highest political level have contributed not a little to the inherently ticklish `distress sharing' issue snowballing into a major crisis. In fact, if the CRA headed by the Prime Minister — the institution charged with the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the Tribunal's June 1991 interim order (under which Tamil Nadu is to get 205 tmcft of water every year) — has not proved effective as a conflict-resolving mechanism, it is primarily because those who constituted the body singularly failed to display the spirit of accommodation and understanding that was critical for working out an amicable sharing arrangement. If the current tangle, which has already thrown up some disturbing signals affecting social harmony, is not to assume the nightmarish dimensions of the strife and violence witnessed in 1991 following the notification of the Tribunal's interim award, the political leadership of the two States must rise above parochial and narrow partisan considerations and show qualities of statesmanship.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Need for statesmanship

Stamp out the cigarette

Human rights and security

Lessons of the Kashmir elections

Need for collective action

Tibet back on India's agenda

Victory of ballot

Modi's blood brother

Religion and practice

Selfless service

Literacy and health