Cauvery
crisis is a victim of water mismanagement and chauvinism of both Tamil Nadu and
Karnataka. Both sides come from an imaginary “state pride” and listen little to
reason. Both sides don’t understand that neither owns the river.
Karnataka’s Point of View:
1. It
is not getting half the share of water as the original agreement between the
Madras presidency and Mysore was when Madras had an upper hand.
2. The
drinking water crisis of Bangalore supersedes agricultural water needs. World
over drinking water is prioritized over other uses.
3. The
times when it was asked to release water, it itself didn’t have much water in
its key reservoirs.
4. The
monsoon cycles of the two states differ. Highest point for Karnataka in rains
could be the lowest for TN and vice versa. Thus, the state is sometimes asked
to release water just when Tamil Nadu could be starting its monsoon.
Tamil
Nadu’s Point of View:
1. Substantially
longer stretch of Cauvery runs in Tamil Nadu more than Karnataka. Thus, a 50–50
split of water would not be fair. Of the drainage area 81,000 sqkm TN accounts
for 43000 sqkm, while for Karnataka it is 34000 sqkm. (http://nihroorkee.gov.in/rbis/basin%20maps/cauvery_about.htm)
2. The
diversion of water to Bengaluru is relatively recent. The city that was more
dependent on lake water had an haphazard growth and ending up drinking the water
meant for farmers.
3. Unlike
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu doesn’t have any other major river nor gets substantial
rains. Thus, its agriculture is more dependent on Cauvery.
4. Even
when Supreme Court gives a ruling, Karnataka government doesn’t listen to the
highest court on water sharing.
Besides the problem of just water, there is also a caste angle involved. Karnataka’s politcal power is with two castes - Lingayats and Vokkaligas - and the political parties have to do a complex dance between them. Lingayats are given concessions such as getting a separate recognition, while for Vokkaligas the primary demand is securing their farming community who dominate the Mysore-Mandya belt.
Overall,
it is a complicated problem to solve, but we have to listen to the Supreme
Court. If we ignore the higher authority on land, then it is anarchy. An
interstate river cannot be a property of any one state. A state government
openly flouting the orders of the court will over time find it hard to get its
stand heard in other issues. Given that Karnataka is also involved in Krishna,
Mandovi and other disputes it makes sense to argue with the court than to
ignore it as its intransigence in one issue can affect its position on others.
Both
political groups have to put following water management on higher priority than
whip up sub-national sentiments:
- Clean
up the lakes and protect their purity. If Bengaluru lakes are not frothing
and burning with massive waste, it could use its lakes for water and be
less dependent on Cauvery water.
- Go
hard on the sand mafia that is destroying the river. If Tamil Nadu truly
acts on the sand mafia that is done in full view of public, its portion of
river would be able to retain more moisture and store more water for dry
season.
- Move
out of rice and other water guzzling crops. For a dry nation, we cannot
afford to use water intensive crops and water intensive cultivation
methods especially when there are no rains. At the very basic we need to
move to drip irrigation and other water efficient methods. We are using
agricultural methods from a time when we had less than 50 lakh people in
total.
These
things could help, but the problem of river sharing still remains. Ultimately,
interstate rivers should all be managed by a single water management authority
that does cost analysis on how many people affected by a particular strategy.
There is no role for sentiments or emotions in here. That is also the stand of the Supreme
Court. As our water wars get bigger, we cannot afford to let petty linguistic,
caste interests dominate something as fundamental as water.
(Image Source: Financial Express)
Comments
Post a Comment