INTRODUCTION-
The Cauvery River is considered to be the lifeline of the peninsular India. Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry are the four riparian states staking claim on the Cauvery river water and Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are major contending states.
Cauvery river basin is spread over an area of 87,000 km with basin area of 36,240 km2 in Karnataka and 48,730 km2 in Tamil nadu. Harangi, hemavathi, shimsha, arkavathi, lakshmanthirtha and swarnvathi are major tributaries joining the river Cauvery in Karnataka and amaravathi, bhavani, noyyal and kodaganaru are major tributaries of Cauvery in Tamil nadu. The below map shows the basin of Cauvery river in all states.
WHY THESE STATES NEED WATER-
Tamil Nadu:This Southern Indian state brims with green paddies and palm fields in the East, alluvial plains stretch to the Coromondel Coast to the West, and high rocky hills cover the Northern portion of the state.
Karnataka:This state is considered the economic power of southern India. Bangalore, its capital city, is the fastest growing city in India. Growing high tech sectors are centred in Bangalore such as pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Due to the "industry friendly" atmosphere in Karnataka, major international firms are finding it a beneficial location for business. International firms in Karnataka include Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Cargill Corporation. This industrialization is not without consequence for Karnataka. These firms and industry sectors require a mass amount of water; water that is scarce in this region. In times of weak monsoons, the fragile water situation in Southern India is exposed.
CLAIMS-
The state of Karnataka contends that it does not receive its due share of water from the river as Tamil Nadu does. Karnataka claims that these agreements were skewed heavily in favor of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on "equitable sharing of the waters". Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, pleads that it has already developed almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2) of land and as a result has come to depend very heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in the state. Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit.
PRE INDEPENDENCE HISTORY -
During the colonial period the Mysore and Madras governments entered into the 1892 and 1924 agreements. While the 1892 agreement was a general agreement relating to numbers of interstate rivers, the 1924 agreement related to irrigation development in the Basin of Cauvery River through krishnarajasagar dam. Both agreements were permanent. It also says that when upstream works are planned, the prior consent of state government of lower down area is to be obtained. This was to ensure that nothing shall be done in Mysore which will have the effect on customary supply of waters in lower riparian states.
POST INDEPENDENCE HISTORY-
* The Cauvery River Dispute has been a serious issue since 1974 when a 50 year old agreement between the Madras president and the princely Mysore state collapsed. Karnataka asserts that the 1924 agreement demanded a discontinuation of the water supply to Tamil Nadu after 50 years. The Karnataka maintains that the state suffered due to its discriminated past. Attempts of irrigation development were frustrated by British government in Mysore region who protected the interest of people in madras presidency. Therefore, 1892 and 1924 agreements were imposed on weak Mysore state. Tamil nadu, on other hand, argue that early irrigation has always been in delta region which is primarily due to conductive soil, water and topographic conditions. Also, story of British rulers is of immediate past; its actual history dates back to 2nd century AD.
* STAGE 1: between 1924-1974
There were protests but they were sporadic and unnoticeable.
* When Karnataka began construction of theHarangidam atKushalanagarainKodagu, it was once again met with resistance from Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu went to court demanding the constitution of a Tribunal under theInterstate River Water Disputes Act(ISWD- this act provides an important mechanism to resolve interstate water dispute) of 1956. It also demanded the immediate stoppage of construction work at the dam site. In spite of this Karnataka went for completion of the dam without taking into account the impact on the livelihood of other states.
* In April 1991, the Supreme Court of the Government of India reassigned a tribunal to settle the dispute as mandated in the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act. The Tribunal heard arguments from both states, and reached the decision that Karnataka must release 205 TMC of water from the Cauvery reservoirs to Tamil Nadu on a monthly basis .Karnataka declined to accept the ruling of the Tribunal. The Government of Karnataka argued that the Tribunal issued a decision that was not implementable. Due to failed monsoons, many parts of Karnataka were left without adequate water supplies. If the government were to release more than 100 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu, then it would be disadvantaging its own people.
* STAGE 2: BETWEEN 1974-1990
Dispute got intensified and distrust built up due to information and communication gap.
* The rejection of the Tribunal's decision pushed the negotiations on a downward spiralling path that eventually led to aborted talks. As mentioned previously however, water issues seem to only erupt when there is a lack of adequate rain. In 1992, 1993, and 1994, the rain was sufficient to pacify the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
* In 1995, the monsoons failed to fill the Cauvery tributaries possessed by Tamil Nadu. On January 1, 1996, Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao asked Karnataka to release an immediate six tmcft (one thousand million cubic feet) of water to Tamil Nadu to save the standing crops. In addition, the Prime Minister announced the immediate formation of an expert council to "spot assess" the status of the standing crop of both states to include the level of water needed to sustain the crops.
* STAGE 3: 1995-96
Thousands ofTamilfamilies had to flee fromBangalorein fear of being attacked by pro-Kannada activists. The violence and show down, mostly centered in the Tamil populated parts of Bangalore and Mandya, lasted for nearly a month.
NOTE: It should be noted that despite the stalemate in negotiations and the violence that erupts, Karnataka has been releasing water from the Cauvery River to Tamil Nadu in instalments for the last twenty years. The dispute between the two states is over the quantity of water released.
* The tribunal gave its final award share in 2007 as: Kerala 30 TMC, Karnataka 270 TMC, Tamil nadu 419 TMC and Pondicherry 7 TMC.Tamil nadu dissatisfied with the decision approached the Supreme Court by filling special leave petition (SLP).
* On 20 February 2013, based on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Indian Government has notified the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing the waters of the Cauvery system among the basin States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala and Union territory of Pondicherry. The verdict is as follows
KarnatakaTamil NaduKeralaPondicherryTotal
Basin Area (in km)34,273(42%)44,016(54%)2,866(3.5%)148(-)81,155
Share for each state as per Cauvery Tribunal final award Dated 19 February 2013270 (37%)419 (58%)30 (4%)7 (1%)726
* In response to the Special Leave Petition (SLP) lodged by Tamil Nadu earlier, the Supreme Court on 10 May 2013 issued an interim direction to the Government of India (GoI) to establish a temporary Supervisory Committee to implement the Cauvery tribunal order till the constitution of Cauvery Management Board as stated in the tribunal order. GoI issued the gazette notification establishing the said Supervisory Committee.
A PRIVATE NOTE CIRCULATED BY RAMASWAMY IYER, 2003-
It must be noted that in Indian or International law, there is no ownership rights over flowing waters. Neither karnataka nor tamil nadu owns the cauvery. They all have use rights. There is no hierarchy of rights; neither the upper riparian nor the lower riparian has primacy. There is an equality of rights but of course not an entitlement to equal rights. How much each state is entitledto is a matter for agreement or adjudication. It is inappropriate to talk of the upper riparian giving waters to the lower riparian, as though it is a gift. At the same time, there is no question of the lower riparian asserting a pre-emptive right to waters to the detriment of the upper riparian. The upper riparian cannot say to the lower riparian: this is difficult year. We do not have enough water for our own needs. We cannot spare any water for you. Even in a difficult year the available water has to be shared. Similarly, the lower riparian cannot say to the upper riparian: we have been receiving certain flow from centuries. They must continue to come to us undiminished. This is our absolute right.
LESSONS LEARNT-
1. A sound research is required for carrying and undertaking forward the dialogue.
2. Degree of success or failure of process depends upon active and sustained states political support.
3. Need for an untiring, and credible facilitator (it could be an institution or individual) who can carry the job for arranging a good platform between both states.
CONCLUSIONS-
1. One need to understand the complicated nature of basin complexity due to over politicization and emotional attachment to the Cauvery water.
2. One needs to acknowledge the fact that Cauvery region is the deficit region.
3. The issue is not the sharing of unutilized surplus water but re-sharing of water shortages.
4. Farmers and politicians in both major contending states should recognize the fact that losing or gaining some quantities in the process of negotiation is much better than keep or bargaining forever or keeping conflict alive.
5. Adaptation is what most needed at the moment adapt to the changing needs and changing socio-economic and ecological conditions.
6. Since the basin is already been in stress, the negotiators should move ahead with long term perspective.
By AGAM JAIN
SOURCES:
1.http://www.pildat.org/publications/publication/WaterR/CaseStudy-InterStateWaterDisputesAmongtheRiparianStates.pdf
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rivers_Inter-link
3.http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/CAUVERY.HTM
