In a federal system, most of the inter-state rivers lead to serious disputes when it comes to water sharing. In case of India particularly, there are many such inter-state rivers like Narmada, Godavari, Krishna, Cauvery and Mahanadi to mention a few. Unlike in cases of international (trans-boundary) rivers, the contending parties in an intranational river dispute cannot resort to armed conflict. Therefore, their options are restricted to available legal mechanisms within the national/democratic framework. In India, the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, (ISRWD Act) was enacted as per provisions of Article 262 of the Indian Constitution. This Act was later amended in 2002 as per the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission. This Act provides an important legal mechanism to resolve the inter-state water disputes. Indeed, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted on June 2, 1990, as per provisions of the ISRWD Act, 1956, to adjudicate the dispute among the contending states. Once the tribunal is constituted, this Act restricts the Supreme Court from intervening in the adjudication process.
In the case of the Cauvery dispute, after the declaration of the Final Award in 2007, the contending states had the liberty to go back to the tribunal with a review petition for a supplementary award. Instead, they had approached the apex court with Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). Given that the ISRWD Act bars the Supreme Court from intervening, the court should have directed the SLPs to the tribunal instead of admitting them. Eight years since then, resolution remains a distant dream. Meanwhile, in 2013, due to persistent pressure from the Tamil Nadu government, the Government of India had to print the Final Award in the Union Gazette. Indeed, it should have been followed by the constitution of the Cauvery Management Board (CMB). However, the CMB constitution faced various political and other hurdles. While the Karnataka government resists moves to constitute the CMB, the TN government had been applying pressure for the same. Whether the CMB would contribute to the resolution of the dispute, remains a trillion-dollar question!
Nothing significant has happened even after the protracted legal struggle. If anything, the situation has gotten worse. Tamil Nadu gets water from the upstream only when there is heavy rainfall in the upper catchment and when the dams in Karnataka overflow. Otherwise, the standard reply TN receives is that either there is no water to release or the dams are half-empty. On each such occasion, the TN government is compelled to approach the Supreme Court, which in turn orders restricted release of water from Karnataka reservoirs. And violence has erupted every time Karnataka had been forced to release water.
The violence being witnessed today is similar. But I would like to pinpoint a couple of important concerns in the present context:
When Karnataka pleaded with the Supreme Court citing that people in the state are in the mood to agitate and that this may lead to wide-spread violence, the court took strong exception to the plea and stated that the deteriorating law and order cannot be the reason for non-execution of its order. The state’s government should take serious note of it.
What is the message the Karnataka government and other political parties there are trying to convey by backing or resorting to violence, setting ablaze hundreds of vehicles and damaging properties? I wish to say here that there are 24 unresolved inter-state water disputes across India. The principle of federalism and the Indian Union would evaporate if all of them resort to violent expressions such as the ongoing one.
Nevertheless, a prudent analysis of the long-standing dispute would convey a few points:
Tremendous mistrust had been built up among the farmers of both states over time;
All successive governments and political parties used the Cauvery water dispute for their own short-term political gains, which contributed to regional and linguistic chauvinism;
Cauvery has an over-exploited basin (or deficit basin) where around 1,250 tmc feet of water is needed for the command areas already developed in both states. However, only 740 tmc feet is available at 50 per cent dependability;
There has been a remarkable and momentous cultural and emotional attachment to Cauvery water in both states.
Institutional and judicial interventions can help only up to a point, but cannot give a lasting solution and peace.
Keeping in mind these concerns, I initiated a farmer-to-farmer dialogue in 2003 involving prominent farmer leaders from both states. The initiative, Cauvery Family, has met 18 times. In its last meeting, in 2012, we arrived at a water sharing formula acceptable to farmers of both states. Though this initiative was widely appreciated by the media and civil society, it failed to grab politicians and governments’ attention. The initiative failed as it did not receive any political support. The violence we are witnessing in the two states could have been circumvented had the political parties or governments recognised initiatives by non-governmental/non-political organisations.
