Cauvery Dispute: Riots, Reasons, Resolution
UPSC GENERAL STUDIES II & III
With the Southwest monsoon falling short this
season, the story of any other monsoon-deficient year is being repeated: Tamil
Nadu rushing to the Supreme Court citing the crisis faced by its farmers, the
court ordering release of some water, and protests erupting in Karnataka……
Table of Content
Reason why the Cauvery dispute has been in news:
Historical Context of the Dispute
Present Context: Why is this dispute still lingering on?
Arguments made by Karnataka
Arguments made by Tamil Nadu
How to resolve this dispute?
- Short
Term Measures
- Medium
Term Measures
- Long
Term Measures
Comments on Supreme Court’s handling of this issue
Conclusion
Associated Issues
- Cauvery
Dispute: A clear illustrations of dangers posed by sub-national tendencies
& regional chauvinism
- Cauvery
Dispute: Failure of Political Leadership
- Cauvery
Dispute: Pointers on how the flare up should have been avoided
Mains Type Questions
Facts on Kaveri (Objective)
Bibliography
The 124-year-old Cauvery water dispute is among the rare
water disputes that have not been resolved because it is linked to inadequate
rain.'
Reason why the Cauvery dispute has been in news?
Last week, the Supreme
Court had ruled that Karnataka must release 15,000 cusecs of water daily for 10
days to Tamil Nadu.
Given that there was
less rainfall in Cauvery’s catchment areas, the order led to a breakdown of law
and order situation in parts of Karnataka.
Later Karnataka was
asked to release 12,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu daily till September 20,
which is 3,000 less than what the state had been asked to share last week.
Historical Context of the Dispute
The Cauvery dispute
started in the year 1892, between the Madras Presidency
(under the British Raj) and the Princely state
of Mysore when they had to come to terms with dividing the river water
between the two states.
According to the 1892 and the 1924 agreements the river water is distributed
as follows:
75 percent with
Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
23 percent to Karnataka
remaining to go to Kerala
23 percent to Karnataka
remaining to go to Kerala
The real problem
started after the re-organisation of states post Indian independence. Before
that, most matters were settled through arbitration and agreements. Through the
late 20th century, Tamil Nadu opposed the construction of dams on the river by
Karnataka, and the state in turn wanted to reduce the water supply to Tamil
Nadu.
Present Context: Why is this dispute still lingering on?
The reason for this
endless cycle of sporadic litigation and ad hoc adjudication is that the two
States continue to avoid any mutual engagement to
share the shortfall during distress years. And
there is no permanent, independent mechanism to ensure this.
Absence of Permanent Independent Mechanism: The Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal, which gave its award in 2007, has asked the parties to share
the deficiency on a pro rata basis. However, a major problem in implementing
this aspect is the absence of a ‘Cauvery Management
Board’ and a Regulatory Authority, which the Tribunal had wanted created
to oversee implementation. Instead, after notifying the final award in 2013,
the Union government set up a Supervisory Committee comprising officials from
the Union government and the Central Water Commission and representatives of
both States. The court has now
asked Tamil Nadu to approach the committee, which will decide on further
releases.
Inability to share shortfall: While the CWDT has fixed a sharing formula in what are
considered “normal” rainfall years, it has failed to arrive at one for the
distress years that occur at least once in every three or four years. Given
changing weather patterns, and the erratic nature of the monsoon
where even if the volume of precipitation does not vary dramatically, its
spread over the months does, the quantity of water stored in reservoirs is
affected. This year, for instance, the storage in Cauvery basin reservoirs
in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is 30% and 49% lower respectively than the average
of the last 10 years.
Arguments made by Karnataka
- Karnataka says it has been given a raw deal under the agreement reached by the then Mysore State and Madras Presidency.
- Karnataka says that this year, there has been not enough rain in key catchment areas for the Cauvery as also in the Kodagu district of Karnataka, where the Cauvery originates.
- Tamil Nadu's claims of "agony" are false, and that Karnataka had hardly enough water for farming or even drinking after poor rain.
- Karnataka says Tamil Nadu has already completed one crop cycle, and is now unfairly seeking water for another, whereas its own farmers are struggling.
Arguments made by Tamil Nadu
- Tamil Nadu says its farmers are in desperate need of the water for the samba or second seasonal crop of the year.
- Tamil Nadu says lakhs of acres have come to depend on the water and so its share cannot be reconfigured.
- In the 1970s, Cauvery Fact Finding Committee found that Tamil Nadu’s irrigated lands had grown from an area of 1,440,000 acres to 2,580,000 acres while Karnataka’s irrigated area stood at 680,000 acres, resulting in an increased demand of water for Tamil Nadu. A study conducted by the central government in 1972 said the utilisation of water from Cauvery in Tamil Nadu was 489 one thousand million cubic feet (tmc ft) against Karnataka’s 177 tmc ft. Given the above figures of water usage, Karnataka cannot deny water to Tamil Nadu as it has already established utilization. (CONNECT THIS WITH MASSIVE DAM BUILDING SPREE UNDERTAKEN BY INDIA AND CHINA TO ESTABLISH PRIOR USE RIGHTS)
How to resolve this dispute?
The fact is the Cauvery basin is overdeveloped and legal instruments
are insufficient to address the recurring water crisis. Attempts to resolve the
Cauvery dispute have so far focused on resource sharing while ignoring equity and efficiency issues. Besides agriculture, urbanisation and industrialisation in the
Cauvery basin and beyond are adding to the stress on the river. Water
availability in the Cauvery is unlikely to increase, hence solutions ranging
from disincentivising water-intensive crops and agri
practices to reducing over-dependence on the Cauvery by encouraging decentralised water management are necessary.
Short Term Measures
·
Center must set up the Cauvery
Management Board and Regulatory Authority: Ideally, as stipulated by the Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal, the technicalities of water-sharing should be left to the
Cauvery Management Board, which is to monitor the water flows with the help of
the Cauvery Regulation Committee and the respective State authorities. As laid
down by the CWDT, the issue of water-sharing should be
left in the hands of technical experts, and not politicians who are
hostage to the emotions of a parochial fringe.
·
Political Conduct: Political parties have to desist from playing chauvinistic identity politics and
allow rational engagements on the issue to take place.
Medium Term Measures
·
Information Sharing: Transmission of quick and accurate information
— rainfall to reservoir storage — could help dispel the current mistrust among
the different stake-holders.
·
Non-political initiatives, such as the ‘Cauvery Family’: A
body formed a few years ago covering farmers of both States, could help
disperse the clouds of hostility that gather over the border whenever the
Cauvery crisis erupts. Farmers in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu need to understand
each other’s needs and fears and collectively seek solutions.
·
Reassess the tribunal award: The tribunal award itself has been criticised
for the way it assessed water availability — it didn’t factor
in ground water in the river basin, which is more in the lower riparian
region and less in the upper riparian state.
Long Term Measures
·
Devise a sustainable agricultural solution: Cauvery River does not seem to have the
potential to meet the farming requirements of both sides. Examples of
sustainable agricultural solutions can be: fewer crop
seasons and lower acreages, a resort to less water-intensive crops and better
water management.
·
Evolve a rational pricing mechanism: The decreased flow and diminishing catchment
area of the Cauvery made the higher demand for water
unsustainable. The best way out is a rational
pricing mechanism, as is the case for any demand-supply
gap situation. Resource overuse and wastage are
the direct result of the same being underpriced or not priced at all. Pricing
water according to its availability in the monsoon and drought years would plug
the problems associated with overuse.
·
Water Conservation: The Centre has come up with drafts on two model Bills for water conservation. The first one
concerns itself with a national water framework.
The second is on groundwater. The attempt is a
laudable one. The implementation of these model drafts will, however, be left
to the discretion of the states.
Comments on Supreme Court’s handling of this issue
The apex court itself
has come down heavily on the Karnataka government for playing victim. It has
reminded the executive of its obligation to implement the law in letter and
spirit without using popular protests as an excuse for non-compliance.
In spite of its
censure, the Supreme Court has not only heard Karnataka's appeal but has also
revised its previous order, which, not surprisingly, has once again failed to
satisfy the appellant state. This pattern has repeated itself endlessly in the
entire course of the dispute between the two riparian states.
In fact, the
court itself may be said to have encouraged such behaviour by admitting special
leave petitions against the award of the Cauvery water tribunal although the
Inter-States Water Disputes Act, 1956, bars the jurisdiction of the courts in
respect of any water dispute that may be referred to a tribunal under this act.
Further, the monsoon
failed the catchment area of the Cauvery and its tributaries in Karnataka and
major reservoirs have reported poor water levels. Perhaps a more delicate
intervention, to start with if at all, from the Supreme Court that recognised
the plight of Karnataka may arguably have helped prevent a flare-up.
Conclusion
The Cauvery water
dispute has influenced the politics of the region for long with parties
stirring emotions of people as the river has a deep cultural, economic and
religious significance for them. This, in turn, led to a situation where the
public opinion became rigid with time making it even more difficult for the
political outfits to find a common ground.
Water is a resource
that is becoming increasingly scarce. While it is crucial that states insist on their rightful share, it is equally
important that they make rational estimates of
its economic and ecological value to optimally
use this resource. A negotiation based on this
recognition is perhaps the only long-lasting solution to issues such as the
Cauvery dispute.
Associated Issues
Cauvery Dispute:
A clear illustrations of dangers posed by sub-national tendencies & regional
chauvinism
- The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
- Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests.
- Political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other.
- That Tamil-speaking people settled in Karnataka for generations are made to feel insecure, and business establishments run by entrepreneurs tracing their familial ties to Karnataka are targeted in Tamil Nadu are indications of how the water dispute goes beyond the interests of the people and becomes mixed up with the emotive issue of linguistic identity.
Cauvery Dispute:
Failure of Political Leadership
- Despite all indications that subnationalist groups are likely to storm the streets over what historically has been an emotional issue in the region, the state government could not deal with the situation. By the time curfew was imposed and police deployed in sufficient number, mobs had had a free run of the streets. (Indian Express)
- In India, sometimes politicians get away with just about anything. Here is a fine example: After two days of raging violence in Karnataka that led to large scale destruction of expensive public property, Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah came out on Tuesday to make an appeal for peace. However, his appeal did not sound convincing because he added that the Supreme Court order on sharing of Cauvery water with Tamil Nadu (12,000 cusecs water to Tamil Nadu per day till September 20) was an “unfair” decision and that it would be difficult to carry out the order. Bengaluru has been placed under curfew after deadly violence erupted over the long-running dispute. Around 15,000 police officers were deployed on the largely deserted streets of the country’s IT capital to enforce a curfew, after rampaging, stone-pelting mobs set buses and cars ablaze. (Hindustan Times)
Cauvery Dispute:
Pointers on how the flare up should have been avoided
- Message that should have been sent out: People must accept the highest court’s order with grace, not indulge in violence and that the government will help the people in whatever way it can to fix any water shortage in the state.
- Curfew should have been imposed immediately after minor incidences were reported out of various parts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, as they have been known to flare up.
- Kannadigas and Tamils both have been known to become perpetrators and victims of violence. Special arrangements to ensure law and order in Tamil habitations in Karnataka and Kannadiga habitations in Tamil Nadu should have been undertaken.
- The governments of the two States as well as at the Centre should have sent out a strong signal to the marauding mobsters that violence, in whatever name, will be put down strongly by the security forces.
Some more points from
short/medium/long term steps that can be taken to resolve the issue can be used
in this section.
Mains Type Questions
Q.1) Historical water usage pattern reflecting the imblance in the development of the basin becomes the basis for water sharing. Will this arrangement not lead to exacerbation of imbalance in development? How should the claims of less developed regions who now seek more water be settled? Discuss.
Facts on Kaveri (Objective)
- Kaveri (also spelled Cauvery), is the sacred river of southern India. It rises on Brahmagiri Hill of the Western Ghats in southwestern Karnataka state, flows in a southeasterly direction for 765 km through the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, and descends the Eastern Ghats in a series of great falls.
- Before emptying into the Bay of Bengal south of Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, the river breaks into a large number of distributaries forming a wide delta called the “garden of southern India.”
- Known to devout Hindus as Daksina Ganga (“Ganges of the South”), the Kaveri River is celebrated for its scenery and sanctity in Tamil literature, and its entire course is considered holy ground. The river is also important for its irrigation canal projects.
- In Karnataka the river bifurcates twice, forming the sacred islands of Srirangapatnam and Sivasamudram, 50 miles (80 km) apart. Around Sivasamudram are the scenic Sivasamudram Falls, comprising two series of rapids, Bhar Chukki and Gagana Chukki, plunging a total of 320 feet (100 metres) and reaching a width of 1,000 feet (300 metres) in the rainy season. The falls supply hydroelectric power to Mysuru (Mysore), Bengaluru (Bangalore), and the Kolar Gold Fields, more than 100 miles (160 km) away.
- Upon entering Tamil Nadu, the Kaveri continues through a series of twisted wild gorges until it reaches Hogenakal Falls and flows through a straight, narrow gorge near Salem. There the Mettur Dam, 5,300 feet (1,620 metres) long and 176 feet (54 metres) high, impounds a lake (Stanley Reservoir) of 60 square miles (155 square km). The Mettur Project, completed in 1934, created an important agricultural and industrial area by improving irrigation and providing hydropower.
- The Kaveri’s main tributaries are the Kabani (Kabbani), Amaravati, Noyil, and Bhavani rivers.
Bibliography
- 14.09.16: Sharing without caring
- 14.09.16: Cool Tempers
- 14.09.16: Lost in the Current
- 14.09.6: Only court orders cannot solve
the Cauvery Problem
- 15.09.16: India's Water Wars: Cauvery is
not the end
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/iuZRQumpS57sX1nch51YTL/Indias-water-wars-Cauvery-is-not-the-end.html
No comments:
Post a Comment