Water wars

The story of water, its sharing and subsequent disputes are not confined to India and Bangladesh. Consequently, Teesta is not the only example of distress over sharing of waters. There is a replay within India, where two of its states are locked in a bitter feud. 

 Unlike the sharing of Teesta waters where negotiations have been the route, within India, blood has been shed over water. 
 Two of its southern states, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, have seen tensions, attacks on vehicles and pelting of stones following the Cauvery water dispute. 
 Buses were torched, petrol bombs hurled and Karnataka’s border with Tamil Nadu sealed as incidents of violence were reported in the Cauvery basin districts. Schools and colleges remained closed. The arterial highway between Bengaluru and Mysuru was declared out of bounds following protestors taking to the streets, burning vehicles and attacking shops, banks and other establishments. Truck drivers were vulnerable because they were stopped abruptly on the highway and ordered to abandon their vehicles. Those vehicles carrying Tamil Nadu registration were targeted and burnt down. It was mayhem. 
 This followed a Supreme Court directive to the state of  Karnataka to release 6,000 cusecs of Cauvery water a day to Tamil Nadu from September 21 to 27. The Karnataka government finds the court order “difficult to implement”. As of now, there seem no sign of complying. 
 Meanwhile with an eye on a long term solution to the bid to the ongoing Cauvery river water dispute, the Supreme Court  asked the Centre to constitute a Cauvery Management Board (CMB), an expert resolution body, within four weeks.
 The CMB has been long pending. In the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 2007,  Karnataka was ordered to release 172tmc of water in a ‘normal’ year to Tamil Nadu. The Centre notified the award in 2013, but did not constitute CMB.
 On 5 September, the court had directed Karnataka to release 15,000 cusecs of water per day till 16 September. This order was revised on 12 September to 12,000 cusecs of water per day. 
 Both verdicts led to widespread protests.
The Cauvery dispute is a pre independence bane. It has been a thorn in the flesh for both states. The real problem started after the re-organisation of states post Indian independence. Before that, most matters were settled through arbitration and agreements. 
In later years, Tamil Nadu opposed the construction of dams on the river by Karnataka. The state in turn wanted to discontinue the water supply to Tamil Nadu. Each staked a claim on the river especially Karnataka given that the river originates there. 
Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu’s dependence on water had increased given that huge tracts of agricultural lands were developed around the river. Their argument:  livelihood of farmers would be affected if there was a change in the distribution of water. 
 The 765-km-long river cuts across two Indian states, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. It originates at Talacauvery in Kodagu district in Karnataka. While it flows mainly through Karanataka and Tamil Nadu, a lot of its basin area is covered by Kerala and the Karaikal area of Puducherry.
 In 1986, a farmer's association from Tanjavur, Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court and demanded that a tribunal be formed for the adjudication for the Cauvery water dispute. Later the Court directed the Centre to constitute a tribunal and distribute the water between states.
In 1991, the tribunal gave its award and directed Karnataka to ensure that 205 tmcft reach Tamil Nadu every year.  
However this decision was not well received. The Karnataka government rejected the tribunal award and sought to get it annulled. However the Supreme Court struck down the ordinance and asked for the tribunal award to be upheld. Karnataka refused to oblige.
 Things settled when the next few years  saw enough rain for the states.  In 1993, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa went on a sudden fast on the issue of Tamil Nadu’s share of water.
 Years went by and there was a lot of to and fro on the issue that resurfaced at regular intervals. 
  Things came to a head this month  following the Supreme Court’s direction to the Karnataka government to release the river water on a daily basis to help  meet the demands of the summer crop in the state. The Court order, declared as “unimplementable” by the affected state, has yet to take effect.   If Karnataka is enraged, farmers in Tamil Nadu are happy over the court directive. There is, they say, hope for the state to get sufficient water for their crops. Karnataka, on the other hand, is reeling under acute shortage of drinking water. 
 There is another twist in the tale: this being that the jurist representing Karnataka that has unfavourable verdicts from the Court, representing J.Jayalalitha in a disproportionate assets case. Jayalalitha is Chief Minister for Tamil Nadu: the state that is celebrating because the Court verdict is in its favour. 
 This is but one part of the story: farmers woes and water scarcity. 
The other and the more important one is the politics over water. Political parties have jumped in and ignited unrest.  The river has been given a sanctity and religion and culture weaved in to stir passions. Under the circumstances, court directives were given a go-by. With both states in an unrelenting mode and people taking to the streets, the chances of finding common ground are very bleak. 
 Absence of a welfare equilibirium has led to disputes. Dams were constructed without bothering about the adverse effects to states in the lower plains. This diminished the flow of water to them giving rise to conflicts and disputes. 
 In the case of Cauvery, for instance, the rise in demand had a lot to do with the expansion of cities, drying of alternative water resources and the demand from crops that needed more water. The advice to refrain from water intensive cultivation was happily ignored, particularly in the years that saw a deficit in rainfall. Farmers in both states have refused to cultivate less water intensive crops, preferring paddy over others. 
 Even though the inter state tribunals are part of the Indian Constitution, they have done little to resolve issues. Delay is their hallmark. 
 Water is not about rights only. Neither can it be limited to basics or principles that must be followed. Water is a sentiment and a need that changes from time to time. 
 It is in this context that Bangladesh needs to be commended for its unending patience over the unresolved water issue with India. The sharing of Teesta waters is hanging fire with no signs of a forward movement. 
 The stumbling block is India and its domestic concerns given that the government had, for long years, failed to get West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on board. Now willy nilly she has agreed to share the waters but the Indian Government is procrastinating: it seems to be in no hurry to push the deal. Bangladesh, on its part,has not pressed the panic button even though it could have. 
 When it comes to water it is neither about a dispute nor about them and us. The way it has to be looked at it is in a spirit of togetherness. Sure it is scarce and need based but wisdom lies in sane negotiations, in a give and take spirit and more importantly addressing the issue to the advantage of every stakeholder rather than sullying the waters or spilling blood over it .

The writer is a senior Indian journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected]) 

Water wars

The story of water, its sharing and subsequent disputes are not confined to India and Bangladesh. Consequently, Teesta is not the only example of distress over sharing of waters. There is a replay within India, where two of its states are locked in a bitter feud. Unlike the sharing of Teesta waters where negotiations have been the route, within India, blood has been shed over water. Two of its southern states, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, have seen tensions, attacks on vehicles and pelting of stones following the Cauvery water dispute. Buses were torched, petrol bombs hurled and Karnatakas border with Tamil Nadu sealed as incidents of violence were reported in the Cauvery basin districts. Schools and colleges remained closed. The arterial highway between Bengaluru and Mysuru was declared out of bounds following protestors taking to the streets, burning vehicles and attacking shops, banks and other establishments. Truck drivers were vulnerable because they were stopped abruptly on the highway and ordered to abandon their vehicles. Those vehicles carrying Tamil Nadu registration were targeted and burnt down. It was mayhem. This followed a Supreme Court directive to the state of Karnataka to release 6,000 cusecs of Cauvery water a day to Tamil Nadu from September 21 to 27. The Karnataka government finds the court order difficult to implement. As of now, there seem no sign of complying. Meanwhile with an eye on a long term solution to the bid to the ongoing Cauvery river water dispute, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to constitute a Cauvery Management Board (CMB), an expert resolution body, within four weeks. The CMB has been long pending. In the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 2007, Karnataka was ordered to release 172tmc of water in a normal year to Tamil Nadu. The Centre notified the award in 2013, but did not constitute CMB. On 5 September, the court had directed Karnataka to release 15,000 cusecs of water per day till 16 September. This order was revised on 12 September to 12,000 cusecs of water per day. Both verdicts led to widespread protests. The Cauvery dispute is a pre independence bane. It has been a thorn in the flesh for both states. The real problem started after the re-organisation of states post Indian independence. Before that, most matters were settled through arbitration and agreements. In later years, Tamil Nadu opposed the construction of dams on the river by Karnataka. The state in turn wanted to discontinue the water supply to Tamil Nadu. Each staked a claim on the river especially Karnataka given that the river originates there. Meanwhile, Tamil Nadus dependence on water had increased given that huge tracts of agricultural lands were developed around the river. Their argument: livelihood of farmers would be affected if there was a change in the distribution of water. The 765-km-long river cuts across two Indian states, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. It originates at Talacauvery in Kodagu district in Karnataka. While it flows mainly through Karanataka and Tamil Nadu, a lot of its basin area is covered by Kerala and the Karaikal area of Puducherry. In 1986, a farmers association from Tanjavur, Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court and demanded that a tribunal be formed for the adjudication for the Cauvery water dispute. Later the Court directed the Centre to constitute a tribunal and distribute the water between states. In 1991, the tribunal gave its award and directed Karnataka to ensure that 205 tmcft reach Tamil Nadu every year. However this decision was not well received. The Karnataka government rejected the tribunal award and sought to get it annulled. However the Supreme Court struck down the ordinance and asked for the tribunal award to be upheld. Karnataka refused to oblige. Things settled when the next few years saw enough rain for the states. In 1993, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa went on a sudden fast on the issue of Tamil Nadus share of water. Years went by and there was a lot of to and fro on the issue that resurfaced at regular intervals. Things came to a head this month following the Supreme Courts direction to the Karnataka government to release the river water on a daily basis to help meet the demands of the summer crop in the state. The Court order, declared as unimplementable by the affected state, has yet to take effect. If Karnataka is enraged, farmers in Tamil Nadu are happy over the court directive. There is, they say, hope for the state to get sufficient water for their crops. Karnataka, on the other hand, is reeling under acute shortage of drinking water. There is another twist in the tale: this being that the jurist representing Karnataka that has unfavourable verdicts from the Court, representing J.Jayalalitha in a disproportionate assets case. Jayalalitha is Chief Minister for Tamil Nadu: the state that is celebrating because the Court verdict is in its favour. This is but one part of the story: farmers woes and water scarcity. The other and the more important one is the politics over water. Political parties have jumped in and ignited unrest. The river has been given a sanctity and religion and culture weaved in to stir passions. Under the circumstances, court directives were given a go-by. With both states in an unrelenting mode and people taking to the streets, the chances of finding common ground are very bleak. Absence of a welfare equilibirium has led to disputes. Dams were constructed without bothering about the adverse effects to states in the lower plains. This diminished the flow of water to them giving rise to conflicts and disputes. In the case of Cauvery, for instance, the rise in demand had a lot to do with the expansion of cities, drying of alternative water resources and the demand from crops that needed more water. The advice to refrain from water intensive cultivation was happily ignored, particularly in the years that saw a deficit in rainfall. Farmers in both states have refused to cultivate less water intensive crops, preferring paddy over others. Even though the inter state tribunals are part of the Indian Constitution, they have done little to resolve issues. Delay is their hallmark. Water is not about rights only. Neither can it be limited to basics or principles that must be followed. Water is a sentiment and a need that changes from time to time. It is in this context that Bangladesh needs to be commended for its unending patience over the unresolved water issue with India. The sharing of Teesta waters is hanging fire with no signs of a forward movement. The stumbling block is India and its domestic concerns given that the government had, for long years, failed to get West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on board. Now willy nilly she has agreed to share the waters but the Indian Government is procrastinating: it seems to be in no hurry to push the deal. Bangladesh, on its part,has not pressed the panic button even though it could have. When it comes to water it is neither about a dispute nor about them and us. The way it has to be looked at it is in a spirit of togetherness. Sure it is scarce and need based but wisdom lies in sane negotiations, in a give and take spirit and more importantly addressing the issue to the advantage of every stakeholder rather than sullying the waters or spilling blood over it . The writer is a senior Indianjournalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])