Cauvery, the ‘Dakshina Ganga’ or the Ganges of the south, and the fourth largest river of southern India
has been the economic backbone of the states through which it flows, making its
impact felt most strongly in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. In these two states, the
river is almost the Mother Goddess, entwined with the identity of the people
there. It is celebrated in music and literature and sung praises of in prayer
and legends. Yet this same holy river has been the bone of contention between
the two states for decades.
The contest for Cauvery between
what is modern day Tamil Nadu and Karnataka can be traced back to the 11th century AD. It is believed that Chikkadeva Wodeyar of Mysore attempted to
stop the flow of Cauvery into Tamil regions to settle scores with Chokkanath
Naik of Madurai kingdom.
But the modern day trouble over Cauvery’s water goes back to 1807 when
the Mysore state initiated development projects on the river and the Madras
government disapproved of the same. This initial bit of squabble between
the two governments resulted in the agreement
of 1892 and then again in 1924. At present, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are at
loggerheads with each other over the sharing of Cauvery’s water, but the
precise origin of the disagreement is the treaty of 1924 signed between an
erstwhile British province and the princely state. In the decades since the
1920s, internal borders and politics within the country have undergone
significant changes, but the regulations set out in an agreement formed under
colonial rule is what is causing the two states to simmer.
Agreement of 1892
Writing about the historical
background of the Cauvery
dispute, political scientist Midatala Rani says in the late 19th century the
relationship shared between Madras
presidency and Mysore state was that of a ‘sovereign power and a feudal unit.’ “ Because of these reasons, the
then British government favoured Madras,” she writes. When Madras presidency
disapproved of Mysore’s irrigation plans on the Cauvery in 1807, and the two
states could not come to a mutual agreement, the matter had to be taken by the
government of India which was then in British hands.
Through the intervention of the
British government, the General Agreement of 1892 was signed between the
two states. The agreement entitled, “Rules defining the limits within which no
new irrigation works are to be constructed by Mysore State without previous
reference to Madras government,” laid out six rules of negotiation between the
two states regarding Cauvery water.
The regulations meted out in the agreement made clear that the Mysore State
was not to start with a development project on the Cauvery without asking for
consent from the Madras Presidency. The Madras Presidency, on the other
hand, was not to disallow the project unless it contradicted with the
prescriptive rights that they had already acquired. Interestingly, the
agreement failed to codify what these prescriptive rights were.
Over time, the agreement was felt
to be unfair to both the states. While Mysore
was unhappy about the lack of definition of Madras’ prescriptive rights, Madras
was disappointed about not be allowed usage of water above its rights which
might be unutilised.
Agreement of 1924
The shortcomings of the agreement
of 1892 came to the fore when in 1910 Mysore proposed the construction of the Kanambadi dam
across the Cauvery. Almost at the same time, Madras proposed an
irrigation project on the river. The Madras state objected to the second stage
of the Kanambadi project and eventually the government of India had to be
consulted.
Initially, the government left
the two states to reach an agreement between themselves, but once that appeared
impossible a Court
of Arbitration presided over by Sir Henry Griffin was appointed to
look into the matter. It was under him that an agreement was formulated on
February 18, 1924, which was to be valid for the next 50 years.
Consisting of 10 clauses, the agreement of 1924 set
out that henceforth, at least for the next
50 years, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
would be allotted 75 per cent of the Cauvery water, while 23 per cent would be
given to Mysore and the remaining would run into the hands of Kerala or
what was then Travancore.
A large part of the present
tussle between the two states arises from a few contradictory claims raised by
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regarding the agreement of 1924. The Karnataka government believes that
since the agreement of 1924 was to expire after 50 years, its clauses cannot be applied to present-day
water allocation. Secondly, the state claims that considering when the
agreement was signed Tamil Nadu was a British province and Karnataka a princely
state, the latter did not have the
freedom to put forth its interests as strongly as it would have desired.
Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, believes that the agreement of 1924 formed the premise upon
which various developmental projects in both the states had taken place.
Therefore, changing the basic nature of the agreement would be detrimental to
both states. Secondly, they claim that when the agreement was first negotiated,
it was understood that after 50 years, its clauses
would be reviewed, but not completely changed.
Credit: Indian Express Research (http://indianexpress.com/article/research/cauvery-dispute-karnataka-tamil-nadu-5130572/)
No comments:
Post a Comment