|
Events & Issues
New
Delhi, 11 February 2013
Cauvery Water Dispute
STRONG CASE FOR REFORMS
By Dr S.Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New
Delhi)
The recent order of the Supreme
Court directing Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu to save its crops may
well be seen like a drop in the ocean. The Cauvery water dispute has a long
history and calls for major reform in river management in the country.
In this connection what has been
said requires attention. In November 2012, after talks were held between the
Chief Ministers of Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu at the instance of the Supreme Court, a
statement attributed to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu made shocking reading that “Karnataka won’t
give a drop of water to Tamil Nadu”.
This remark is doubly significant as the Court had observed that the
talks should be held in an atmosphere of “give and take”. Of course, we are not to take it in a literal
sense, but as an expression of the broad position taken by the Karnataka
government in a particular sequence of events and conditions.
Cauvery water dispute is a typical
case embodying the hopelessly complicated scenario of river water management
and governance in India.
When there is shortage, when developmental projects grow, and riparian States
do not enjoy equal access to the source, inter-state problems are bound to rise
in sharing.
The actual water situation in
Karnataka and its ability to fulfil its obligations relating to sharing Cauvery
water are matters to be resolved by water experts. The direction of the Supreme Court to the
Karnataka government to release water to Tamil Nadu immediately resulted in
violent protests by farmers and activists of various organizations of Karnataka
and this is reflected in Karnataka government’s stand.
Going ahead on its stand, the
Government of Karnataka stopped releasing water from the Cauvery to Tamil Nadu
and filed a petition before the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) to suspend the
Cauvery Monitor Committee’s directive to release water to its neighbour. Karnataka has also requested the Union
Government not to notify the final order of the Tribunal ensuring release of
water to Tamil Nadu.
We, the general public who need
water for personal, agricultural, industrial, and commercial purposes, are
certainly irritated by this clash between two neighbouring States erupting
at rather regular intervals. It shows
the weakness of the machinery,
vagueness of principles and procedures, and half-hearted adherence to
commitments governing sharing of inter-State river water in the country.
Evidently, the Constitution makers
did not foresee that river water would become a bone of contention between
riparian States when they listed water, the most precious life sustaining
natural resource, under State subjects.
Even if the Union Government amends
the Constitution to bring water under concurrent subjects, it is doubtful
whether the problem would get a solution.
The present struggle between the States over sharing river water would
then transform into Centre-States politics and inter-party conflicts with worse
political inputs. This is another side of Indian politics.
The background to the present
episode is the fact that the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
issued in February 2007 has not been notified in the Gazette despite court
orders and the Centre’s assent to notify this by December 2012. The bench granted time till end of January
2013 to the Union Government to notify the order, but the deadline has come and
gone.
The Supreme Court has now asked the
Government of India not to abdicate its duty and notify the tribunal’s order by
20th February 2013.
Politics in its worst form is
present in sharing of inter-state river water.
It has made the River Boards Act of 1956 ineffective. It has led to the
establishment of a political authority to mediate in the matter of sharing
water which rightly falls in the domain of professional and bureaucratic
decisions in consultation with the users. What should be governed as an
integral part of national developmental issues, devoid of politics is presently
mired in deep petty politics. Shares and
priorities that should be settled between users and by agriculturists, industrialists,
economists, and administrators are taken to courts for judicial verdicts.
Water governance in India is
deficient in many respects. Here governance refers to the manner power is
exercised in the management of water resource including sharing and
distribution. It involves many fields
and requires a sound mechanism, unambiguous procedures, and strict adherence to
agreed and prescribed arrangements.
Since these prerequisites are missing, affected parties approach courts
for settlement.
Water is not the concern of the
governments alone or the consumers only.
It is an indispensable ingredient for holistic development. Sound water
management calls for integrated work of several departments actually cutting
across State borders with public-private collaboration.
This is acknowledged in the National
Water Policy 2002 which has stressed the need for development and management of
water resources in a holistic and integrated manner covering different needs
through participatory approach.
The State governments are neither
able to settle water sharing amicably in a friendly spirit, nor agreeable to
conform to a national water framework law presently under consideration. They
invoke the bogey of Central intrusion into State jurisdiction.
The Punjab Government opposes any permanent central water
authority. Tamil Nadu and Karnataka reject the idea of a national water
framework law. Sadly, States have no
common stand.
But, the award of the tribunal,
though final, cannot be forced on the States. This facilitates the aggrieved to
approach the Supreme Court for reversal of the tribunal’s order which obviously
means delay.
In the case of Cauvery dispute, on
the direction of the Supreme Court, the Central Water Commission sent a
three-member expert committee to assess the requirement of water in the delta
region of Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu was asking for 12 tmcft of water to save crops
and scaled it down to 9 tmcft; farmers
bargained for at least 8 tmcft; the
expert committee thinks that 2.44 tmcft is sufficient and the Supreme Court
accepts and issues the order.
Tamil Nadu rejects the
recommendations of the committee, and Karnataka is inclined to seek possibility
of legal remedy and is in no mood to release water.
All these point to the urgency of
reforming river water governance and management. Whether it is in the form of a
Constitutional amendment, a framework legislation, or a permanent Central water
body with representatives of all stakeholders are issues to be decided by broad
consensus. Appeal to the Supreme Court year after year – nay, season after
season - is a sign of bad governance and
bad management of river water in India. –INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
