Conflict, Cauvery and Chintan
At last the award is out. The tribunal has given its order regarding the oldest water-sharing dispute (probably) in the world. 419tmc of water to Tamil Nadu, 270tmc to Karnataka, 30tmc to Kerala and 7tmc to Pondicherry (Puducherry now?). As a Kannadiga my initial reaction to the order was a little disappointment (I hadn’t expected Karnataka to gain much from the protracted legal battle) and a little irrational anger. ‘Why is it that TN gets a disproportionately larger share of water while Karnataka gets so little?’ I screamed at the TV like Vatal Nagaraj (of the dark glasses-cum-stupid-cap with rabid dog behaviour infamy). However I am no political leader/activist nor am a member of Karnataka Rakshana Vedike. I don’t live in Karnataka (haven’t lived there in 10 years). So all my anger couldn’t be directed at any Tamil(even if one were around). Nor could I rationalise all the protests that might (be) take (taking) place in Karnataka – the looting, rioting, violence, burning and any other kind of rampage (I believe in violent words/vitriolic arguments and unfortunately not in physically violent behaviour). I have heard that unprecedented security measures have been taken by the state government to avert any untoward incidents (I'm sounding so clichéd).
Instead I went to the net and started reading the entire case history of the dispute (after many years again). I also read the breaking stories from the internet editions of leading newspapers. I google-searched and found enough links. I pored over the interviews, research papers, arguments that I found on the net (even some American universities have used this dispute as a case study). I read the order of the Cauvery Tribunal carefully. What I learnt surprised me.
Compared to the interim award given in 1991, Karnataka has to release less water to Tamil Nadu (182tmc – 175 actually, as 7tmc has to be released to Puducherry from this share again - now as compared to 205/210tmc). And, this is ONLY during a normal or good monsoon year and not during a rain-deficit year. And, the 419tmc (thousand million cubic feet) water TN is entitled to is inclusive of the water that joins Cauvery in TN. Importantly the measure would be the water level at Biligundulu and not at Mettur.
Karnataka has certainly benefited from the adjudication of the tribunal but the government may not accept it easily. The dispute has always been more political than real. It’s more an emotive issue than pragmatic. It is time for the government to ‘educate’ itself and the emotional Kannada elements of the reality of the dispute and the award. Isn’t it time to learn that the Cauvery network has more area in TN than in Karnataka? Has the river not been completely exploited by both the states already? Should the government not tell its citizens that even at the height of agitation it released water to TN and complied with the interim orders of the tribunal?
However I have a few points to pick. No axe to grind though. For one, what is this allocation for environmental purposes? Why should it only be allocated to TN? Why can’t there be some allocation on Karnataka’s side too? Or is it already included in the 270tmc earmarked as the state’s share? The second point – the more important one – is the tribunal’s silence on the sharing of waters during the non-normal (or dry or lean) years. It says there’d be proportional sharing. But is that fair? Should not there be a mechanism in place to know what’s proportional during the years of distress (the years that precisely cause agitations, riots and disturbances and stoke the political fires)? If the Tribunal couldn’t arrive at a mechanism in 17 years that it took to give this adjudication it is one of its failures.
I fervently hope that there are no more untoward incidents in either states, that there would be a comfortable truce and peace between the two states and its people (the two states have had bitter rivalries stretching over the historical ages and it’s time to forget the past). Cauvery is worshipped on both sides of the border. May She answer my prayers!
P.S. It’s possible that when I make my trip to Karnataka I’d be lynched by my own friends who’d read this piece. I’m looking forward to that!
Instead I went to the net and started reading the entire case history of the dispute (after many years again). I also read the breaking stories from the internet editions of leading newspapers. I google-searched and found enough links. I pored over the interviews, research papers, arguments that I found on the net (even some American universities have used this dispute as a case study). I read the order of the Cauvery Tribunal carefully. What I learnt surprised me.
Compared to the interim award given in 1991, Karnataka has to release less water to Tamil Nadu (182tmc – 175 actually, as 7tmc has to be released to Puducherry from this share again - now as compared to 205/210tmc). And, this is ONLY during a normal or good monsoon year and not during a rain-deficit year. And, the 419tmc (thousand million cubic feet) water TN is entitled to is inclusive of the water that joins Cauvery in TN. Importantly the measure would be the water level at Biligundulu and not at Mettur.
Karnataka has certainly benefited from the adjudication of the tribunal but the government may not accept it easily. The dispute has always been more political than real. It’s more an emotive issue than pragmatic. It is time for the government to ‘educate’ itself and the emotional Kannada elements of the reality of the dispute and the award. Isn’t it time to learn that the Cauvery network has more area in TN than in Karnataka? Has the river not been completely exploited by both the states already? Should the government not tell its citizens that even at the height of agitation it released water to TN and complied with the interim orders of the tribunal?
However I have a few points to pick. No axe to grind though. For one, what is this allocation for environmental purposes? Why should it only be allocated to TN? Why can’t there be some allocation on Karnataka’s side too? Or is it already included in the 270tmc earmarked as the state’s share? The second point – the more important one – is the tribunal’s silence on the sharing of waters during the non-normal (or dry or lean) years. It says there’d be proportional sharing. But is that fair? Should not there be a mechanism in place to know what’s proportional during the years of distress (the years that precisely cause agitations, riots and disturbances and stoke the political fires)? If the Tribunal couldn’t arrive at a mechanism in 17 years that it took to give this adjudication it is one of its failures.
I fervently hope that there are no more untoward incidents in either states, that there would be a comfortable truce and peace between the two states and its people (the two states have had bitter rivalries stretching over the historical ages and it’s time to forget the past). Cauvery is worshipped on both sides of the border. May She answer my prayers!
P.S. It’s possible that when I make my trip to Karnataka I’d be lynched by my own friends who’d read this piece. I’m looking forward to that!
Labels: Karnataka, Water-wars
posted by Quintessential Critic (Sudhir Narayana) @ 2:26 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
No, it's not correct. A separate provision has been made for the 'inescapable flow of water into the sea' - a provision of 4tmc feet.
So this environmental purpose is something else.
Post a Comment
<< Home