The Narendra Modi government’s volte-face on the setting up of the Cauvery Management Board (CMB) has added another layer of legal and political complexity to the century-old river water-sharing dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
On Monday, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court that it (the court) had no jurisdiction to direct the formation of the CMB. This, after agreeing only last week that it would set up the body by 4 October!
The Centre’s contention is that the CMB is only an idea that the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal had thrown up. It was at best recommendatory in nature. It also said that such a body had to be set up with the authorisation of Parliament and not by an executive order.
Centre’s Stance Comes as BJP Risked Losing Popularity
It appears that the change in stance is the result of BJP’s realisation that the party would lose further ground in Karnataka if the CMB were to be set up.
BJP, which has 17 Lok Sabha members from the state and a good chance of riding back to power in the 2018 Assembly elections, had been under attack for not leveraging its influence with the Prime Minister in getting ‘justice’ for Karnataka in the dispute.
In the last couple of weeks, the Congress government led by Siddaramaiah has found all-round support for the firm stance against the Supreme Court’s “unreasonable” orders for release of Cauvery water to lower riparian Tamil Nadu. The state BJP has had no option but to go with the flow or risk further erosion of popularity.
A short hunger strike by former Prime Minister and Janata Dal (Secular) leader HD Deve Gowda in protest against the setting up of the CMB appeared to have rattled BJP even more, so much so that Modi quickly sent word to Gowda that his concerns would be addressed.
Centre’s Opposition to CMB Faces Backlash in Tamil Nadu
All this while, the impression that the Centre was favouring Tamil Nadu in the river water dispute had gained currency. That the BJP should have allowed itself to be viewed thus is strange because its stakes in Karnataka are more than in Tamil Nadu.
Modi hadn’t shown any inclination to intervene despite violence in Karnataka following an SC order for release of water to Tamil Nadu on 12 September. He didn’t call for any meeting of chief ministers of the two states.
The only inter-state meeting that took place was convened by Water Resources Minister Uma Bharti and that too on the direction of the Supreme Court. And given that Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa couldn’t attend it because she is in hospital, the meeting ended up only as a photo op for Bharti.
While the Centre’s opposition to the formation of the CMB has been welcomed in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu has slammed the move.
AIADMK spokesperson CR Saraswathi said the Centre was opposing the formation of the board in order to win the assembly elections in Karnataka due in 2018. “Opposition to CMB is contempt of court,” she said.
Other political parties in Tamil Nadu have also cried foul, causing another political fire which BJP will have to douse.
Why Karnataka is Against Formation of CMB
The Centre’s altered response came after Karnataka filed a review petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the court’s authority to pass orders to release water and form the board.
The constitution of such a board, it said, would violate the National Water Policy of 2012. The policy prioritises drinking water needs over needs of irrigation, the petition argued.
It has been Karnataka’s case that the water in its reservoirs is just enough to meet the drinking water needs of its towns and cities and there is nothing more to spare for irrigation in Tamil Nadu.
Karnataka’s opposition to the CMB stems from concerns about its reservoirs coming under supervision by a body which could disagree with its assessment and declarations of its need for water.
Proposition of CMB Not Strong Enough?
The constitution of a machinery to implement the tribunal’s award has been hanging fire since 2007.
But is CMB really the answer to conflict-free sharing of the river waters? Unlikely, given the lack of clarity on the powers the body will be invested with.
In its final award, the tribunal laid out the composition and nature of duties of the CMB and under it, of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee. But the extent of its authority and powers to make an errant state to fall in line are not at all clear.
In fact, the tribunal itself raises this issue when it says, “In our opinion, the necessity of setting up a suitable mechanism is of utmost importance; besides whatever machinery is set up should be adequately empowered to implement the tribunal’s decision, as otherwise, we are afraid our decision would only be on a piece of paper.”
At another point in its order, the tribunal notes: “If the board finds that if any government - Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Puducherry - does not co-operate, it can seek the help of the central government.”
If the ball has to lobbed back into the court of the Centre every time there is a breach in following the tribunal’s award, what use is the CMB?
All these years, whenever there have been shortages of water, disputes have arisen between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over sharing the distress. And each time, the affected state has knocked on the doors of the central government through the Cauvery Supervisory Committee (an official body) or the Supreme Court, neither of which has been able to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of either of the two main parties.
The two-judge bench hearing the Cauvery case could have left the issue of the formation of the CMB to be heard when the court hears the special leave petitions challenging the very award of the tribunal later this month.
(The writer is a senior editor working with a Doha-based daily. This is a personal blog and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)