Events & Issues
New
Delhi, 9 December 2011
Mullaperiyar Dam Row
NEED FOR FRESH APPROACH
Dr. S. Saraswathi
(Former, Director, ICSSR, New
Delhi)
The current controversy between the
Congress-led Government in Kerala and AIADMK in Tamil Nadu over the Mullaperiyar
Dam has once again brought into sharp focus the weakness of the existing
principles of sharing river water flowing through two or more States and the
ineffective mechanism for resolving differences.
Construction of dams and sharing of
available water has invariably become contentious issues among States depending
on the same river(s). Politics comes
into play and political parties take positions on the issue which should instead
be beyond politics and treated as non-political developmental question to be
handled by construction engineers, agriculturists, economists,
environmentalists, social welfare activists, and other experts.
The worst scenario is presently
witnessed in the dispute over Mullaperiyar Dam where one party – the Government
of Tamil Nadu - is asking for deployment of Central Industrial Security Force
for the protection of the dam on a fear of deliberate damage to the dam as if
the dispute is with an enemy country. On
the other side, fear of possible
collapse of the dam in the event of an earthquake in the vicinity is spread
like wildfire and makes people and government collapse at the very thought
of any such event.
It is unbelievable that State
borders drawn on linguistic lines can divide people on the question of sharing
a free natural resource which is a primary requirement for life for all. But, they do and call for arbitration, settlement,
and judicial decisions by authorities expected to be neutral between the warring
parties.
Some of these disputes have been going
on for several decades. Water disputes between Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and
Kerala over Cauvery, between Gujarat and Maharashtra over Narmada, between
Punjab and Haryana over Ravi-Beas, and between Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka
over Krishna are some of the more serious problems
fought like mini-wars that seem to be never ending. The Supreme Court is again
and again dragged into water disputes despite the presence of tribunals for
arbitration.
Water, in matters relating to
supplies, irrigation, canals, drainage and embankments, storage, and power, is
a State subject in the distribution of powers in the Seventh Schedule of the
Indian Constitution. However, this is
subject to item 56 of the Union List under which Parliament may by law declare
the extent of Union control in regulation and development of inter-State rivers
and river valleys if it is expedient in public interest.
Further, Article 262(1) of the Constitution
states that Parliament may, by law, provide for adjudication of any dispute or
complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of
any inter-State or river valley. It is followed by a safeguard to maintain Central
control under Article 262(2) which states that notwithstanding anything in the
Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor
any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or
complaint referred to in clause (1). It
seems that the Constitution makers did not rule out the probability of “disputes
over waters” which is indeed the caption
given to this Article, but did not foresee the vigour with which they would be
fought.
Along with the States Reorganization
Act of 1956, the Union Government adopted the Water Disputes Act 1956 which has
provided for setting up a Tribunal to deal with any water dispute. The River
Board Act adopted in the same year enables States to propose, develop, and
manage inter-State rivers. River basin States
can undertake projects to develop, conserve, and use inter-State river water.
However, the Central Government has
enormous power and authority in the federal system and no State can on its own
carry out projects within its territory in respect of any inter-State river
that would adversely affect another State. This limitation in the States’ space
has been confirmed by the Supreme Court while dealing with the dispute between
Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka over the Almatti Dam. In any case, the Union Government has the
financial control which effectively restricts the freedom of the States.
However, litigations in the course
of inter-State disputes over river water have enlarged the authority of the
Supreme Court contrary to the purpose of the 1956 Act. In fact, in many cases, settlement by Water
Tribunals is resented by political parties or governments involved in the
dispute. The verdicts of the Supreme
Court are generally accepted and taken as final. Such disputes are not so much among concerned
people directly, but among concerned governments. Water, particularly sharing of river water,
has become an explosive political issue.
While river water is a crucial
dividing factor between States, the country lacks a comprehensive and relevant
national river water policy. The National Water Policy, which makes a reference
to river water, was first adopted in India 1987 and was revised in 2002
but retaining its main features. It
envisages development and management of water resources of the country in an
integrated manner. It also ensures that States share the waters of joint rivers,
i.e. rivers running through two or more States.
The national policy has been supplemented by a number of State policies
on water management, use, conservation, prevention of pollution, etc.
Declaration of national policies is
no guarantee for amicable solution of problems.
Policies must be followed by clear operational guidelines, and have to
be backed by appropriate structures with adequate authority for implementation.
In matters that raise rival claims and competitive demands, guidelines may be flouted
and the task of arbitration is not easy.
The Mullaperiyar Dam controversy and
other inter-State water disputes are not legal or political issues. They should
be left to the judgement of scientists and technicians uninfluenced by
political and other parochial considerations. The project of linking rivers is
not a practicable idea given the narrow outlook of people and conflicting
interests of governments.
In view of frequent clash of inter-State
water interests, the feasibility of total central control of all rivers may be a
way out and can be examined. To
eliminate the play of politics altogether, the country may also be classified
into water zones cutting across State borders for the purpose of protecting and
sharing river waters which are unquestionably national property. An expert body may be created to apportion
water periodically to each zone according to agricultural, industrial,
domestic, and other needs. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|