When the Supreme Court on Friday, 16 February, stated categorically that a river is a national resource and does not belong to any one state, it gladdened the hearts of many activists in the lower riparian state of Tamil Nadu. In Thanjavur, PR Pandyan, President of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Committee said this means Karnataka can no longer behave like it owns the Cauvery river, and act as if it were doing a favour by releasing its water downstream into Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry.
But what the verdict has done is ‘offer carrots’ to both sides. And with politicians taking over the cause, Siddaramaiah would exploit it to convey that he protected Karnataka’s interests. In Tamil Nadu, the knives are already out for Edappadi Palaniswami, charging the chief minister with failure on the legal front.
Follow the live updates on the Cauvery water dispute verdict here.
Seeing the ‘Glass Half Full’
A jubilant Pandyan tells The Quint:
Upper riparian states cannot claim rights over river water any more. This is a very significant part of the judgment that will have implications for all inter-state water disputes in India. I feel that the court has taken a far-reaching view beyond mere allocations.
This academic assertion by the court served to cover up for the disappointment over the reduction in its share of water – from 192 TMC ft to 177.25 TMC ft, when it was in fact hoping for an upward revision. Another farmer leader P Ayyakannu, who led the farmers’ protest in New Delhi last year, also preferred to see the glass half full. He is pinning his hopes on the formation of the Cauvery Management Board, that will decide on a monthly basis the amount of water that has flowed out of Karnataka.
“It is shocking that the water quantity allocated to Tamil Nadu has been reduced. But the Board hopefully will ensure that we get at least that quantity of water,” says Ayyakannu. Going by past experience of Karnataka's reticence to release water, farmers want the Centre to constitute the Board within 24 hours.
The Water Wars
Across the border, there is jubilation. Karnataka which had asked for an extra 39 TMC ft of water over and above the 270 TMC ft that was given by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 2007 is happy it got at least 14.75 TMC ft water extra. Unlike Tamil Nadu that sees the reduction in the amount of water allocated to it as a setback, Karnataka sees this as the correction of a historical anomaly.
Environmentalist V Balasubramanian, who also served as Additional Chief Secretary of Karnataka, points out:
Under the previous agreements during the British era, the then Madras Presidency took advantage of a better developed system of irrigation. In comparison, the then Mysuru state had not developed an efficient network of channels. It was only after the formation of Karnataka in 1956 on linguistic basis that the state started focusing on developing its irrigation facilities. Which is why though Karnataka always felt that as the upper riparian state it should get a certain preference over the Cauvery water, Tamil Nadu presented a fait accompli in the form of a large area under cultivation in the delta.
K’Taka’s Tacit Opposition to Water Board
In the euphoria over the verdict, which is seen to be favouring it, Karnataka is not talking much about the constitution of the Board. The state, under successive governments, has always opposed the formation of an independent authority that will keep a close watch on the release of Cauvery water every month and direct or reprimand Karnataka if it fails to abide by what is ordered.
This is because Karnataka feels that it will be forced to release water even when there is a drought-like situation in the state. Karnataka government officials point out that what goes unnoticed is that the state is second only to Rajasthan in terms of being the most arid state in India. So they want the release of water to be under the control of its irrigation department.
If there are no rains and we see a situation in which our farmers are committing suicide, the Cauvery Board will still insist on Karnataka releasing water downstream to Tamil Nadu. That won’t be fair to us.Kurubur Shanthakumaran, President, Karnataka Sugarcane Farmers Association
An Apparent Trust Deficit
There is a political reason to this as well. While Karnataka has in recent years been ruled by either the Congress or the BJP, in Tamil Nadu power alternates between one of the two Dravidian parties. The ruling party in Chennai has often shown a tendency to align itself with the party in power in New Delhi. This clout, Karnataka fears, could be used to get a Cauvery Management Board to do Tamil Nadu's bidding.
The trust deficit is apparent when you speak to people on the other side of the border. Farmers in Tamil Nadu point to standing crops in 8 lakh acres withering for lack of water and claim the Cauvery delta is turning into a desert. The suspicion is that the two national parties, with little political stake in Tamil Nadu, will always champion the Kannadiga cause over Cauvery.
The court has said that an authority has to be constituted within six weeks. With elections in Karnataka due in May, it remains to be seen how the constitution of a Board by the Centre will be received as that would be seen as jeopardising the BJP's political interests in a state where it hopes to come to power.
In an atmosphere of polarised politics and divisive regionalism, any move to set up a Board by the BJP government will be criticised as anti-Kannadiga. It will be up to the court once again to ensure that the deadline is met.
(The writer is a senior journalist. He can be reached at @Iamtssudhir. This is an opinion piece 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.)