The Cauvery conundrum

With the Supreme Court setting a July 12 "deadline" for the Centre to work out a negotiated settlement to the Cauvery dispute, the Vajpayee Government finds itself pulled in different directions by political parties in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

V. VENKATESAN
in New Delhi

THE Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition Government at the Centre is virtually being torn apart by intense pressure from political parties in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka on the Cauvery waters issue. And much to its discomfiture, it finds itself running short of time to find a negotiated settlement to the decades-old dispute between the two States. On July 21, a Bench of the Supreme Court adjourned to August 12, hearing in the case relating to the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's interim award, in order to enable the Centre to inform it of the steps taken in the matter of framing a draft scheme to implement the June 25, 1991, award. The Court ruled out further adjournments: "Thus far and no more," observed the Bench, which comprised Chief Justice M.M. Punchhi and Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri.

Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee wanted the court to give the Government at least six weeks to find a negotiated settlement. He said that the Government was hopeful of creating a "harmonious atmosphere" between the two States to settle their differences. However, senior counsel for Tamil Nadu, K. Parasaran, opposed a "long adjournment". He said that the issue related only to the implementation of the draft scheme and that quite a number of attempts to resolve the issue had been made at the highest level without success. He pleaded that no further time be lost.

The interim award had directed Karnataka to release 205 tmc ft of Cauvery water a year to Tamil Nadu. The draft scheme has been circulated to Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.

SHANKER CHAKRAVARTY
AIADMK general secretary Jayalalitha.

BARELY days before the proceedings in the Supreme Court, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) general secretary Jayalalitha, the leader of the BJP's principal alliance partner in Tamil Nadu, had warned Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of "disastrous consequences" if the Centre did not notify immediately the scheme on Cauvery waters in the official gazette and table it in Parliament. She asked the Prime Minister to ensure that the Centre did not again seek an adjournment in the Supreme Court when the matter came up on July 21. Instead, she said, arrangements should be made to notify the scheme and the court should be informed of it. She said categorically that there was no possibility of a compromise between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka on the problem. A memorandum signed by members of Parliament belonging to all political parties in the AIADMK-led front in Tamil Nadu, barring the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), was submitted to the Prime Minister.

The AIADMK's shrill protest was a sequel to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi's letter to the Prime Minister asking the Centre to notify the scheme to implement the award. Karunanidhi recalled that eight adjournments had been sought in the past by the Attorney-General and that the Centre had committed itself to framing a scheme under Section 6A of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, on the interim award. Jayalalitha, however, accused his party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and its electoral ally, the Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC), which were key constituents in the United Front Governments, of doing little to get the order implemented. She also questioned Karunanidhi's right to address letters to MPs of the AIADMK and its allies on the Cauvery issue.

Jayalalitha's latest warning to the Prime Minister - interpreted by many people to mean that her party would withdraw its support to the BJP-led Government at the Centre if her demand was not met - failed to have any impact on the BJP. In the party's view, Jayalalitha was merely responding to the compulsions of competitive politics in Tamil Nadu where an emotive issue like the Cauvery dispute could be used to gain political mileage. The impression in BJP circles was that Jayalalitha had understood the futility of demanding the dismissal of the DMK Government, and needed a new issue to flog. The emotive Cauvery issue served this purpose.

BJP general secretary M. Venkaiah Naidu declared, however, that the Centre could not, and would not, work under pressure. The Government's approach in the Supreme Court, to which the Attorney-General gave expression on July 21, was to ask for time, but not to appear to be resorting to dilatory tactics. Sorabjee told the court: "We are not going back on the scheme. There appears to be only a small difference of perception between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. We are hopeful of ironing out the difference."

However, the Government's optimism was not shared by MPs from Tamil Nadu. Members belonging to the AIADMK, the DMK, the MDMK and the TMC walked out of both Houses of Parliament on July 21, protesting against the Centre's "betrayal" of Tamil Nadu's interests in the Cauvery issue.

On July 22, Jayalalitha urged the Centre to notify the scheme without waiting until the August 12 deadline set by the court. In a strongly-worded, five-page statement, which singled out the BJP for attack, she said that the party was playing partisan politics and giving in to sectarian demands. The BJP was sacrificing the interests of Tamil Nadu, which had only three BJP MPs, in favour of Karnataka, which returned 13 BJP MPs, she alleged. Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Madan Lal Khurana's statement that a meeting of the Chief Ministers of the States would be convened was intended to delay the issue, Jayalalitha said.

Members of Parliament from Karnataka too brought pressure to bear on the Centre. An all-party delegation of 30 MPs from Karnataka - comprising members from the Lok Shakti, the BJP, the Janata Dal and the Congress(I) - submitted a seven-page memorandum to the Prime Minister, urging him not to notify the award. The delegation, led by Janata Dal leader S.R. Bommai, demanded that a meeting of Chief Ministers of the four riparian States be called to resolve the issue. The memorandum demanded the framing of a national river waters policy, which would lay down guidelines for the sharing of river waters among riparian States.

T.L. PRABHAKAR
Karnataka Chief Minister J.H. Patel.

THE draft note circulated by the Government among the States that are parties to the dispute, has evoked a range of reactions. Kerala's response was that the machinery sought to be created to implement the scheme, namely, the Cauvery River Authority, was not adequate to deal with the problem. Kerala, whose interest in the scheme is peripheral, disagreed with the scheme's proposal that the decision of the Authority be made final. "Appeals to the courts should be permitted," said the Kerala Government's counsel in the Supreme Court, P. Subramanian Potti. Kerala Chief Minister E.K. Nayanar also wrote to Vajpayee asking the Centre not to take any decision on the Cauvery issue without seeking Kerala's opinion. He said that Kerala could not carry out several projects in the Cauvery's catchment area for want of clearance. Some of the stipulations regarding the functioning of the proposed River Authority went against the spirit of the federal structure of the Constitution, he said.

Karnataka too expressed its reservations. The memorandum submitted by the all-party delegation to Vajpayee stated: "The solution to the problem does not lie in the creation of a mechanism or a regulatory authority equipped with statutory powers." It also opposed certain provisions of the draft scheme, which restricted Karnataka from taking up the construction of new projects, although the Tribunal had not imposed such restrictions.

Many observers believe that a negotiated settlement between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is the only possible solution to the Cauvery dispute. Ramaswamy R. Iyer, former Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, who is now with the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, said that any agreement would face criticism from some quarters in both the States, and it required political maturity to strive for a negotiated settlement by surmounting such opposition. He said that Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had shown political courage in signing the Ganga Water Treaty with India in 1996, even though Opposition parties in Bangladesh had dubbed the treaty a "sell-out". He warned that the attempts by politicians in Tamil Nadu to politicise the issue further would harm the State's interests. He reasoned that any delay in finalising an agreement would not harm the interests of Karnataka, an upper riparian State; on the other hand, with the passage of time, it would become difficult to enforce the Tribunal's award to safeguard Tamil Nadu's interests, given the chauvinistic sentiments evident in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

According to Ramaswamy Iyer, Tamil Nadu's insistence on securing the same quantity of water as it was getting before Karnataka began its massive irrigation efforts in early 1970s has no legal basis. Tamil Nadu used to get about 480 tmc ft of water from the Cauvery; its share was subsequently reduced to 340 tmc ft. The Tribunal's award directing Karnataka to share 205 tmc ft out of about 670 tmc ft was not "excessively generous", he said. At the same time, he felt that Karnataka had to recognise that Tamil Nadu too had a pre-determined right over the Cauvery. If Karnataka was doubtful about its capacity to share water during lean seasons, it should convey its concerns to the Tribunal, which might consider Karnataka's case then. Unfortunately, Karnataka did not allow the only conflict-resolution mechanism to function, he said.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar