The Hindu : Cauvery: disturbing developments

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Sep 22, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Cauvery: disturbing developments

By Ramaswamy R. Iyer

This article is not about the issues and numbers involved in the water-sharing dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. It is about the implications of certain recent developments. Undoubtedly this is a year of distress, and both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have their problems. The distress has to be shared by all the riparian States. Precisely how that sharing should take place, how much water each State needs, and what sacrifice each has to make and live with, are matters for mutual agreement, or mediation by the Cauvery River Authority (CRA), or decision by the Supreme Court. This writer takes no position on these matters, and he holds no brief for the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister; her actions in initially refusing to participate in the meetings of the CRA, subsequently showing disrespect to the Prime Minister by walking out of a meeting, and later deputing a Minister to a meeting instead of attending it herself, were not merely questionable from the point of view of propriety but also unwise from a practical point of view. However, what is beyond doubt is that Tamil Nadu as one of the States in the Cauvery basin is entitled to a certain share of the waters even in a year of low flows.

On this, the position taken by Karnataka Government, as it emerges from their various statements and actions, is an untenable one. They did not willingly cooperate in the Monitoring Committee's and CRA's efforts to work out a distress-sharing formula. Even their acceptance of the Supreme Court's decision was qualified by a rider about protecting the interests of the Karnataka farmers. Their position can be paraphrased as follows: "This is a year of distress. We do not have enough water to meet our own needs. It is very difficult for us to spare any water for Tamil Nadu. We will see what we can do.'' This is surely not an unfair summary of the Karnataka position. It sounds reasonable, but in fact it is not. What it means is that Karnataka reserves the right to decide what it needs and how much (if anything) it can spare for Tamil Nadu. It is reluctant to accept any mediation or decision on this by the Tribunal or the CRA or even the Supreme Court. Karnataka is implicitly asserting the primacy of the upper riparian.

In this context it is instructive to consider India's position in the treaty with Bangladesh over the sharing of the Ganga waters (December 12, 1996). That treaty is based on a recognition of Bangladesh's rights as a lower riparian. Not only has India bound itself to a sharing formula, but it has gone further and undertaken to protect the flows arriving at Farakka, which is the sharing point. Even in a distress year India cannot say "sorry, we do not have enough water for our own needs and cannot release the quantum specified in the treaty''. The sharing formula operates even under those circumstances. When the flows fall below a certain level, the two countries have to hold consultations on an emergency basis, but the treaty rights of Bangladesh are in no way abridged. What India has recognised in relation to Bangladesh, Karnataka is unwilling to accept in relation to Tamil Nadu. (It is interesting to note that the Ganga Treaty was signed on behalf of India by the then Prime Minister, Deve Gowda.).

If the Karnataka Government asserts the primacy of the upper riparian, the farmers of that State, particularly in the Mysore-Mandya region, go much further. They assert their exclusive rights over the Cauvery waters, and they claim over-riding powers of decision-making. Their position is not that 1.25 tmcft or 0.8 tmcft of water cannot be spared; it is simply that nothing, not a drop, can be spared. Whether they have arrived at this position themselves or have been led to think along these lines by political or other leaders is immaterial. This is their position and they hold it with passion. They gather in large numbers, try to take over the dams and reservoirs, shut down the outlets, and create serious problems. Some have jumped into the river, and one person is said to have lost his life. They have asked the State Government to ignore the decisions of the Tribunal, the CRA and the Supreme Court, and have virtually declared that their own decisions will override the decisions of all those authorities.

They are profoundly misguided and grievously wrong, and yet no one in the State seems to have the courage to tell them so. All the political parties in the State are guided by the political importance of the farmers' feelings; none of them is concerned to the slightest extent about the rights and wrongs of the matter, the distress in Tamil Nadu, the implications for the rule of law, the sanctity of constitutionally-mandated conflict-resolution mechanisms, or the inviolability of the Supreme Court's decisions. If they are worried at all, it is only about the contempt powers of the Supreme Court. The State Government, far from trying to educate the farmers, has taken popular sentiment as the over-riding consideration, and suspended the release of waters to Tamil Nadu, thus violating the Tribunal's interim order, the Supreme Court's direction and the CRA's decision. They are reported to have very bravely stated that they are willing to face the consequences. This is perverse heroism. If they had faced up to the popular agitation and said ``we are willing to face the consequences,'' one would have honoured them. At the same time, they are also reported to have said that they are not defying any authority but merely trying to maintain peace. In other words, they have surrendered to violence and confessed their inability to maintain law and order. Perhaps they consider the agitation to be justified; one hopes that is not the case. The State Government is said to have sought an urgent meeting of the CRA, and has held an all-party meeting at Delhi, in preparation for the next hearing of the Supreme Court. What will they tell the court? Will they say that feelings are running high in the State? That the Government cannot cope with that strength of feeling; that it cannot maintain law and order; that it is in no position to implement any distress-sharing formula; that if the Tribunal's or the CRA's or the Supreme Court's decisions are unacceptable to the farmers they will not be implemented; that if there is a conflict between judicial determinations and popular feelings the Government will be guided by the latter?

Where in the midst of all this are the intelligentsia of the State? There are many balanced, sane, civilized, wise, eminent persons in Karnataka. Is it not their duty to point out to the Government, the political parties and the farmers the error of their ways and their serious implications? Why does one not hear their voices? Or are they, in fact, doing so in the Kannada media?

(The writer is a former Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India.)

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Fighting over the family silver

Calculations confounded

Easing up on the pedal

Cauvery: disturbing developments

Potential for defence cooperation