It is an irony that this river of life remains a bone of contention. Unlike what people say, “It does not happen only in India but also in many other places around the world."
Shortage of water is a global phenomenon, an ever-growing problem. With ever-increasing population and the demand of water, opinion differences are bound to happen among people. As to understand what makes Cauvery problem of such a magnitude, one needs a run-through of its history.
The Cauvery River originates in the Talacauvery ranges of Kodagu (Coorg) district flows through large parts of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and also some parts of Kerala and Pondicherry. No attempt was made to utilize its waters for irrigation in Karnataka until 1883. Then the Diwan of the princely state of Mysore launched a scheme. This move was objected by the then Madras presidency under the British rule. This gave birth to the dispute of the century which is yet to be solved.
The Cauvery row had a sigh of relief on two ocassions - two rounds of talks between the Mysore state and Madras presidency in 1892 and 1924. Mysore was permitted to construct a dam in Kannambadi village to impound 44.8 thousand million cubic feet of water. Madras appropriated to itself the right to construct a dam in Mettur in Salem district to impound 93.5 tmc ft. Madras had what is called prescriptive rights over the upper riparian state of Mysore. Malabar district was then part of the Madras presidency. Malabar is now part of Kerala, and Kerala too has joined the Cauvery fray.
The 1924 agreement was valid for 50 years, after which there was to be a review. It stipulated that Mysore could undertake any extension of irrigation by impounding Cauvery waters only with the prior consent of the Madras presidency.
Unfortunately, after British rule, this issue was politicized and till date it created more confusions than a settlement. Twelve years after Independence and 15 years before the expiry of the pact, Mysore, by then rechristened Karnataka, wrote to Tamil Nadu, inviting its attention to several clauses, and suggesting changes. Tamil Nadu turned down the plea. It said any changes would be possible only after the expiry of the pact in 1974.
The central government began an initiative soon after, but the entire issue was given the appearance of a bilateral dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the other two riparian states, namely Kerala and Pondicherry, having been left out until the 1970s.
Shortage of water is a global phenomenon, an ever-growing problem. With ever-increasing population and the demand of water, opinion differences are bound to happen among people. As to understand what makes Cauvery problem of such a magnitude, one needs a run-through of its history.
The Cauvery River originates in the Talacauvery ranges of Kodagu (Coorg) district flows through large parts of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and also some parts of Kerala and Pondicherry. No attempt was made to utilize its waters for irrigation in Karnataka until 1883. Then the Diwan of the princely state of Mysore launched a scheme. This move was objected by the then Madras presidency under the British rule. This gave birth to the dispute of the century which is yet to be solved.
The Cauvery row had a sigh of relief on two ocassions - two rounds of talks between the Mysore state and Madras presidency in 1892 and 1924. Mysore was permitted to construct a dam in Kannambadi village to impound 44.8 thousand million cubic feet of water. Madras appropriated to itself the right to construct a dam in Mettur in Salem district to impound 93.5 tmc ft. Madras had what is called prescriptive rights over the upper riparian state of Mysore. Malabar district was then part of the Madras presidency. Malabar is now part of Kerala, and Kerala too has joined the Cauvery fray.
The 1924 agreement was valid for 50 years, after which there was to be a review. It stipulated that Mysore could undertake any extension of irrigation by impounding Cauvery waters only with the prior consent of the Madras presidency.
Unfortunately, after British rule, this issue was politicized and till date it created more confusions than a settlement. Twelve years after Independence and 15 years before the expiry of the pact, Mysore, by then rechristened Karnataka, wrote to Tamil Nadu, inviting its attention to several clauses, and suggesting changes. Tamil Nadu turned down the plea. It said any changes would be possible only after the expiry of the pact in 1974.
The central government began an initiative soon after, but the entire issue was given the appearance of a bilateral dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the other two riparian states, namely Kerala and Pondicherry, having been left out until the 1970s.
Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu had expanded its irrigation by leaps and bounds. Its acreage increased from 1.665 million in 1924 to 2.82 million by 1971. Karnataka's score showed a rise from 314,000 to 682,000 acres. The agreement had stipulated that Madras was entitled to increase its irrigation land to only 300,000 acres. Mysore's quota was 110,000 acres. Both States had violated the agreement.
Countless rounds of talks have taken place to resolve the issue, but without success. According to a study conducted by the central government in 1972, the utilization of water from Cauvery in Tamil Nadu was 489 tmc ft against Karnataka's 177 tmc ft. Now Karnataka wants to utilise 465 tmc ft, against its present usage of 312.32 tmc ft. It is against this background that Tamil Nadu went to the Supreme Court.
The Cauvery Water Tribunal, in its interim award of June 1991, ordered that Karnataka release 205 tmc of water to Tamil Nadu during one water year, that is from May to June. It also stipulated a weekly quantum of flow, much to the chagrin of Karnataka. This led to large-scale violence on Tamils living in Karnataka.
Karnataka has followed the interim order and has released much more than 205 tmc ft of water every year except during the year 1995-96. This led to the Supreme Court coming down heavily on Karnataka.
The tribunal which had been investigating the issue for 16 years finally came out with its verdict on February 5, awarding 419 tmc ft for Tamil Nadu and 270 tmc ft for Karnataka. Kerala was awarded 30 tmc ft and Pondicherry 7 tmc ft.
It is obvious that a purely legalistic approach can never provide an amicable solution in such sensitive issues. Much depends on the quantification of the terms, surplus and available waters. Only a mutual representation and understanding apart from political tangles from either sides can give this a solution. In litigation, there can be no winner. Even if a court order is secured, it would be counter-productive to try and coerce a state into compliance. That would create further bitterness resulting in untold damage to our fragile federal system.
It is also to be hoped that in the dust of the present controversy, both administrations will not overlook long-term problems which are fraught with important consequences. They must see the Cauvery as a whole and look at the forests, environment, and water-sheds in the two states to forestall any diminution of future water supplies. On the distribution side, the two states must pursue economical methods of transmission (minimizing seepage and evaporation), maximum efficiency in utilization and scope for varying the existing crop patterns.
We must look to science for our salvation, not to law. The two states must consider setting up a joint scientific committee on the Cauvery, comprising forest experts, hydrologists, civil engineers and agronomists to monitor the state of the river regularly and to make periodic recommendations which should be implemented in a spirit of co-operation. Ultimately, it should be noted that the people of both states are the children of Mother Cauvery and must learn to share her gifts on a fraternal basis. One has to realize that the Cauvery, like all rivers, faces a bigger threat from overexploitation and pollution.
Since 1968, many more factories have sprung up in the Mettur area and downstream. There is more than one paper mill functioning, and derricks are going up in the Thanjavur delta in search for oil. Pipelines for natural gas and crude may soon be laid across Thanjavur and its agricultural economy may undergo a total transformation.
If industrialization proceeds apace, and more oil wells are drilled both on and off shore, propelling Thanjavur into an unprecedented oil boom, then more factories and power-houses may arise using the energy thus made available. Perhaps even an oil refinery and petrochemical or fertilizer plants may rise on the landscape.
The Cauvery that our ancestors saw in 1968 is disappearing and by the first decade of the 21st century it may vanish for ever.
The Cauvery Water Tribunal, in its interim award of June 1991, ordered that Karnataka release 205 tmc of water to Tamil Nadu during one water year, that is from May to June. It also stipulated a weekly quantum of flow, much to the chagrin of Karnataka. This led to large-scale violence on Tamils living in Karnataka.
Karnataka has followed the interim order and has released much more than 205 tmc ft of water every year except during the year 1995-96. This led to the Supreme Court coming down heavily on Karnataka.
The tribunal which had been investigating the issue for 16 years finally came out with its verdict on February 5, awarding 419 tmc ft for Tamil Nadu and 270 tmc ft for Karnataka. Kerala was awarded 30 tmc ft and Pondicherry 7 tmc ft.
It is obvious that a purely legalistic approach can never provide an amicable solution in such sensitive issues. Much depends on the quantification of the terms, surplus and available waters. Only a mutual representation and understanding apart from political tangles from either sides can give this a solution. In litigation, there can be no winner. Even if a court order is secured, it would be counter-productive to try and coerce a state into compliance. That would create further bitterness resulting in untold damage to our fragile federal system.
It is also to be hoped that in the dust of the present controversy, both administrations will not overlook long-term problems which are fraught with important consequences. They must see the Cauvery as a whole and look at the forests, environment, and water-sheds in the two states to forestall any diminution of future water supplies. On the distribution side, the two states must pursue economical methods of transmission (minimizing seepage and evaporation), maximum efficiency in utilization and scope for varying the existing crop patterns.
We must look to science for our salvation, not to law. The two states must consider setting up a joint scientific committee on the Cauvery, comprising forest experts, hydrologists, civil engineers and agronomists to monitor the state of the river regularly and to make periodic recommendations which should be implemented in a spirit of co-operation. Ultimately, it should be noted that the people of both states are the children of Mother Cauvery and must learn to share her gifts on a fraternal basis. One has to realize that the Cauvery, like all rivers, faces a bigger threat from overexploitation and pollution.
Since 1968, many more factories have sprung up in the Mettur area and downstream. There is more than one paper mill functioning, and derricks are going up in the Thanjavur delta in search for oil. Pipelines for natural gas and crude may soon be laid across Thanjavur and its agricultural economy may undergo a total transformation.
If industrialization proceeds apace, and more oil wells are drilled both on and off shore, propelling Thanjavur into an unprecedented oil boom, then more factories and power-houses may arise using the energy thus made available. Perhaps even an oil refinery and petrochemical or fertilizer plants may rise on the landscape.
The Cauvery that our ancestors saw in 1968 is disappearing and by the first decade of the 21st century it may vanish for ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment