Waters of Discord: The Cauvery Dispute

-->
-->

-->

-->

Water wars have come to stay in Indian politics with state governments privileging regional chauvinism over national interest. The recalcitrant attitude displayed by the Karnataka Chief Minister SM Krishna, by defying the Supreme Courts orders to release the Cauvery waters and the walkout by the Tamilnadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha from the meeting convened by the Prime Minister has serious implications for Central authority. This has been followed by a series of one upmanship actions through protest rallies, diatribes and padyatras at the political level in both states.
The history of the Cauvery dispute goes back to the nineteenth century between the then Madras presidency (present Tamil Nadu) downstream state and Mysore (now Karnataka) upstream state. The two parties signed an agreement in 1924 which failed to resolve the dispute. Kerala and Pondicherry, which were not parties to the agreement, joined later. An allocation of water was worked out in August 1976 based on the report of the Fact Finding Committee appointed by the Government of India and the studies by an Expert Committee. The agreement was even announced in the parliament but it failed to take off as Tamilnadu was under Presidents rule and later the newly elected AIADMK government refused to ratify the settlement as it considered it unjust.
The issue remained contentious despite the central government's efforts to resolve it through talks at the Chief Ministers level. On the basis of the Supreme Courts order the Central Government established a Tribunal in 1990, but the publication of its interim order in 1991 to ensure annual releases was met with violent riots in Karnataka. The Tribunal had ruled that Karnataka should release a specified quantity 205 billion cubic feet of water yearly. It even specified the quantity of water to be released every month. The Sarkaria Commission had in its recommendations suggested that all water tribunal awards should have the same force as an order/decree of the Supreme Court.
In 1998 the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) was set up with the Prime Minister heading it and the Chief Ministers of the four states as its members. The CRA is not a body vested with executive powers, but is a political body whose role is confined to conflict resolution in the event of any dispute arising over the implementation of the interim directions of the Cauvery Waters Tribunal. This is evident from the recent decision of the Tamil Nadu government to approach the Supreme Court over the implementation of the Tribunals Interim award.
In the ongoing crisis the intervention of the Supreme Court has given a glimmer of hope, whereas the executive has failed to assert itself. In its verdict on 24 October 2002, it flayed the Karnataka government for willfully disobeying its order for release of the Cauvery waters to Tamilnadu. In a stinging indictment the three judge bench drew a parallel with the Ayodhya case and stated "there are a lot of cases where emotions can be aroused. But it will be unfortunate if the states come and say that they cannot implement the court orders"
Shortage of water has become a global phenomenon and conflicts are bound to emerge given the increasing population and its impact on the availability of water. In this dispute both the states have taken a rigid stand over what they consider their legitimate rights. While Karnataka claims an exclusive right over the Cauvery and decries the loopholes in the 1924 agreement, Tamil Nadu insists on the inviolability of the 1924 agreement and hence its rights on historic river flows. Both positions are untenable as there have been qualitative changes in these river flows over the years.

Under the doctrine of 'Community of Interests' the whole river basin should be regarded as a single economic unit irrespective of state boundaries and the waters utilized in an integrated manner for the maximum benefit of all. The wrangling over river waters has serious implications for national unity at various levels.

• Erosion of the Central governments authority is evident by its inaction in dealing with the intransigence displayed by the Karnataka government. In future, other states could follow suit citing popular sentiments, thus overriding the Court verdicts and constitutionally mandated conflict resolution mechanisms.

• The sinister role played by the political class, to harness regional aspirations in both the states could generate communal conflicts endangering the lives of common people (Kannadigas vs. Tamils).

The Cauvery river symbolizes the strong historical, cultural and local sentiments in both the states. So, a careful assessment is needed to resolve the crisis in the light of the need to address the larger issues of federalism and national unity.

Published on 31 October 2002, Institute of peace and Conflict Studies.

URL:

http://www.ipcs.org/comm_select.php?articleNo=905