The Ignominy of the Cauvery Saga

Whose water it is anyways?

Water conflicts are not new on this planet. China for instance has been in the news recently for its (mis)adventures in the south china sea and the resultant heart-burn for neighbours like Philippines, Vietnam et al. A list of water disputes listed here suggests that our ancestors were as aggressive, perhaps more in using water to wage a war/ settle a score!

India has a similar yet different problem in its backyard. Google shall tell you that the Cauvery water dispute between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is at least a century old. Karnataka has found itself on the 'wrong end' of the various verdicts given by the various authorities supervising the dispute directly or indirectly. A near unanimous tenor of these verdicts has been to release a certain amount of water towards Tamil Nadu either in a cyclical pattern during the calendar year or other fixed amounts from time to time.

Tamil Nadu on it's side has continued to protest and demanded more water citing the various awards that were either 'violated' by Karnataka or only partially fulfilled.

Karnataka's pain?

Karnataka has believed and argued that the water belongs to them and they have the first right of use. The politicians have gone to the extent of defying the Supreme Court orders to play to the local audiences. The Chief minister tried to absolve their action (or lack thereof) by stating that “Karnataka is the victim and not the villain of the story”

Facts about Karnataka's water sources:

There are seven river systems in the State viz., Krishna, Cauvery, Godavari, West Flowing Rivers, North Pennar, South Pennar and Palar. Utilization of water in the West Flowing Rivers is hampered due to difficulties in construction of large storage reservoirs. Yield in the seven river basins is estimated as 3418 TMC at 50% dependability and 2934 TMC at 75% dependability. Yield in the six basins (excluding west flowing rivers) is estimated as 1396 TMC at 50% dependability and 1198 TMC at 75% dependability. The economically utilizable water for irrigation is estimated as 1695 TMC. Interestingly enough, it appears that the state doesn't have a single water board to have transparency into its supply vs demand (at least I couldn't find one)

Karnataka is expected to adhere to the judgment passed by the CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL, excerpts of whose report explain it's source of pain.“…In this process, the upper riparian States are in privileged position as upper riparian State claims exclusive right to utilize the water within its territory. This attitude is bound to affect the lower riparian State if the water in such river is not sufficient to cater the needs of all States through which such river passes.” The tribunal report is available here.

An Aside: The same logic is being used by India against China vis-à-vis Brahmaputra and therefore would be a sore point if India decided to ignore the Indus water treaty and wage a water war with Pakistan on its western borders.

Is Tamil Nadu over-playing its dependency?

The Chief minister J Jayalalitha promptly announces a protest every time Karnataka ‘defaults’ in releasing water. However, is the lack of supply really changing the equation for the state or is it simply theatrics? A look at the data from the government website shows that there is a gap in demand vs supply. However, there is no transparency as to how much of the water from Karnataka is towards its irrigation needs for example. The latest official word is that the lack of supply from Karnataka is likely to kill the samba crops. However this masks the poor water management by the PWD department in releasing water on a timely basis for supporting these crops despite the availability of water. And as a minister from Karnataka asked a rhetorical question "Is drinking water for people important or the health of a crop that is due next year?"

So who is right and does it matter why?

Answers to such questions are often not straight-forward and the parties in dispute have to settle for solutions ‘mid-way’. Luminous minds have gone into this issue from time to time and have given a judgment that is bound to dissatisfy one if not both the grieving parties.

The tribunal report for instance goes on to criticize both the states for their exaggerated claims "The higher riparian State claimed its exclusive right to utilize the waters on basis of the aforesaid Harmon doctrine claiming that it had sovereign right to utilize the water in whatever manner it likes within its territorial jurisdiction. On the other hand, the lower riparian States asserted that they were entitled to water of such inter-State or international rivers in their natural flow without any interference or alteration in their character. Both types of claims and assertions by the upper riparian and lower riparian States created not only disharmony, but also anomaly."

Principle of Equitable apportionment

The cardinal rule underlying between the different riparian States in respect of use of the water of an inter-State river is that of equality of right. Each State stands on the same level with all the rest. This principle is being described as the principle of equitable apportionment between the different riparian States in respect of the waters of an inter-State river.

Political leadership is expected to rise above regionalism/sectarianism and address the problems of all concerned to the best of its capabilities. This is sadly not possible in a country that was first pieced together as a conglomerate of various kingdoms, and subsequently divided on linguistic lines. People have their agenda and emotions entrenched in furthering their growth with sometimes a ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ philosophy.

Blame it on the judiciary

This is an easy route that politicians have found out to escape the wrath of people, media and their political opponents. Don’t do anything and let the courts bell the cat. And if the people don’t like it they will protest anyways.

India has some of the best judges in the world that work under such duress and yet manage to churn out remarkably sound judgments &/or observations from time to time. They are our last hope and that’s good and bad.

The judiciary has issued warnings from time to time asking the parties to adhere to the tribunal award while now directing the center to set up a cauvery management board

Some troubling questions

• What has Karnataka done to tap alternative sources of water to meet its demands and yet continue to offer TN its share?

Err…Theatrics like padayatras by sitting chief ministers in the past, a former Prime Minister sitting on a fast?

• What has TN done to improve its water utilization and find alternative sources of water to reduce dependency on Cauvery?

Ahem… Let the water tanker lobby rule the roost. Lack of innovation in agriculture, corruption and blame it all on ‘them’?   

• What’s the role of the central water resources ministry in all of this?

Uma bharti… who? The center has been a painfully silent spectator in this battle, both due to constitutional limitations as well as pressure from the local state party units. Karnataka has been the only BJP bastion in the Deccan while Tamil Nadu has been an ally at the center. Politicians cannot think of solutions without considering the poll outcomes. No wonder their approval ratings normally only go in one direction after getting elected. It is another matter that public forgives and forgets as long as a new topic keeps them distracted.

The world bank has provided financial assistance to both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for better delivery of Irrigation water and improved ground water management practices. Both the state government websites list out initiatives or proposals for effective water resource management. However, it all seems too little and not enough to wade through tough monsoons or poor public sentiment.

What does it all say about us as a society in India? That we are ready to kill burn destroy spew venom at the drop of (Cauvery water) a hat? We are willing to employ “beggar-thy-neighbour” tactics when we don’t have answers to troubling questions. As opposition, we would latch on to every opportunity in exploiting a situation and scoring political points.

Global benchmarks (not exhaustive)

1. Singapore

Given its geographic limitations and an ever prospering economy and population, Singapore had to move towards self-sufficiency for its water requirements. For years it had relied on Malaysia and the negotiations were weighing unfavourably with time.

Singapore now relies on the “Four tap” strategy. 40% of Singapore’s water requirements are met by reclaimed water and seawater desalination. The rest is via rain-water harvesting and imports. Singapore's approach does not rely only on physical infrastructure, but it also emphasizes proper legislation and enforcement, water pricing, public education as well as research and development. In 2007 Singapore's water and sanitation utility, the public utilities board received the Stockholm Industry Water Award for its holistic approach to water resources management.

2. Israel

By pioneering drip irrigation and spreading the same around the world, Israel has led the innovation in smart water resource management when faced with the realities of limited water supply and an increasing domestic demand. Water supply and sanitation in Israel are intricately linked to the historical development of Israel. Because rain falls only in the winter, and largely in the northern part of the country, irrigation and water engineering are considered vital to the country's economic survival and growth.

What could India do?

1.     Invest in Innovation: Be more innovative in the face of adversities and promote further investments in future oriented technologies

2.     Better policing: We need laws to give the police a free hand during these times to  make the right choices. i.e. insulation from political intervention

3.     Active participation of citizens: Condemn any instance of disorderly behaviour and report it to the policing authorities

4.   Accountability: Demand more out of our civil servants and politicians in terms of accountability. Sloganeering and diversionary tactics should be exposed and fought effectively. The regional media has a role to play in exposing the weaknesses in the governance structures

5. Inter-state water resource board - that comprises of experts in resource management, representatives from the states as well as center and reporting to the water resources ministry of the central government

I wonder if our society could be really called progressive given the circumstances we witness. And as we have come to know of mobs, the seeming absence of fear of retribution makes them (or should I say us) abandon civility.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going! Unreasonable?