COMMENTARY

The Cauvery Water Dispute

Need for a Rethink
S Janakarajan

The long-standing Cauvery River

water dispute between Tamil
Nadu and Karnataka continues to
be contentious and has recently
led to violent outbursts in both
states. The cumulative bitterness
and misunderstandings between
the people of the two states hide
the common needs of farmers and
the environment on both sides of
the border. These are the issues
that need to be urgently addressed
even as mechanisms to take the
discussion of water-sharing away
from politics and politicians, such
as the Cauvery Management
Board, are put into place.

S Janakarajan (janak@mids.ac.in) is a
consultant with the Madras Institute of
Development Studies and president of
SaciWATERs.

10

he events that occurred during the

first half of September 2016, following the Supreme Courts directive
to Karnataka to release water to Tamil
Nadu, were shocking. Forty luxury buses
were burnt in one depot in Bengaluru,
two people were killed in police firing
and a young boy committed suicide by
self-immolation in Tamil Nadu. The damage to property is reportedly valued at
`25,000 crore.
This is not the first time such scenes
were seen in Karnataka. Almost the same
or even worse incidents occurred when
the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
announced its interim award in 1991,
allocating 205 tmcft (thousand million
cubic feet) of water to Tamil Nadu. At that
time, 17 people were killed and crores of
rupees worth of property belonging to
the Tamil population in Karnataka was
damaged. Lakhs of Tamils had to flee
the state.
In 200203, following the Supreme
Courts directive to the Karnataka government to release at least 0.8 tmcft of
water to Tamil Nadu, similar violence
took place. The events almost led to a constitutional crisis, unprecedented in the
history of any interstate water dispute in
India. Thanks to the strong words of the
Supreme Court, the then Chief Minister
of Karnataka, S M Krishna, not only tendered an unconditional apology for having disregarded the Supreme Courts directives, but also ordered the release of
water. However, the situation following
the release of water was quite grim in
Karnataka. Violent protests by farmers
had caused enormous damage to public
property, compelling the Karnataka government to impose curfew in Mandya.
A series of pertinent questions arise
following the latest flare-up on the
Cauvery issue. Who is responsible for
this distressing state of affairs? Is it the

Cauvery farmers/water users? They

have flatly denied it and I believe them.
No farmer would indulge in activities
like burning 40 buses. Are political
parties responsible? They deny it. Then
who else? Apparently, the violence was
almost entirely organised by people
who have nothing to do with farming or
Cauvery water. It is reported that a
small Kannada chauvinist group, backed
by vested interests and represented by
almost all political parties, is responsible
for the damage.
The River Cauvery
The Cauvery River is considered one of
the most disputed and litigious rivers
in contemporary India. Whenever the
monsoons fail, conflict between the two
major riparian states explodes. Indeed,
it was one such explosive situation (in
2003) that prompted the Supreme Court
and the Government of India to consider
seriously the possibility of linking the
Himalayan rivers with those in peninsular
India as a measure to link water-surplus
regions with water-deficit regions.
The Cauvery River is one of the most
important rivers in India. This is an
interstate river that runs a total distance
of 802 kilometre (km) passing through
Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and the
union territory of Puducherry. The total
drainage area of the basin is 81,155 km2
and it receives rainfall from both the
southwest (JuneSeptember) and the
northeast (OctoberDecember) monsoons
in the ratio of 3:7. The total annual average rainfall in the basin varies from 1,000
to 1,400 millimetre (mm). Floods and
cyclones always accompany the northeast monsoon accounting for about 70%
of the rainfall. Therefore, it destroys
more than it contributes to the welfare
of farmers in Tamil Nadu.
The Cauvery water dispute between
the riparian states is quite different from
other interstate water disputes such as
Krishna, Godavari or Narmada. In the
case of the latter, the disputes revolve
around the utilisation of untapped
potential. In the Cauvery dispute, the
issue is of resharing the already utilised
water. This is unique in the sense that in

OCTOBER 8, 2016

vol lI no 41

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

COMMENTARY

this river the available water potential

has already been over-utilised. Therefore, the Cauvery water dispute should
not and cannot be compared with other
interstate water disputes.
The key issue is whether it is possible
to protect the already developed irrigation potential. For instance, Karnatakas
irrigation development was slow in the
early part of the century but became
rapid in the late 1970s. It was 1.24 lakh
hectares in 1901, 2.73 lakh hectares in
1971 and 4.53 lakh hectares in 1990.
Currently, it is reported to be close to
10 lakh hectares. Tamil Nadus irrigation
command, was already 5.77 lakh hectares in 1901. It progressed to 9.18 lakh
hectares in 1990 but is currently only
about 8 lakh hectares. Karnataka legitimises its massive irrigation expansion
by pointing to the historical injustice
meted out to it by being denied its rightful
share in the Cauvery waters for centuries.
Being a lower riparian state, Tamil Nadu
feels that it is at the receiving endboth
literally and metaphoricallyand that
it has to bear the main brunt of floods,
drought, and pollution.
In both states, food production and
livelihoods for millions depend heavily
on the availability of water in the Krishna
Raja Sagara (KRS) dam in Karnataka and
the Mettur dam in Tamil Nadu. While
Tamil Nadu finds itself at the mercy and
goodwill of Karnataka during a deficit
year, Karnataka feels that it cannot release
water when there is none for its farmers.
Tamil Nadu argues that the water released from Karnataka reservoirs is not
charity. It fulfils the well-established
rights of people of Tamil Nadu spanning
thousands of years. Consequently, the
Tamil Nadu government periodically approaches the Supreme Court for a legal
solution. Besides seeking a direction from
the Supreme Court for the release of water from Karnatakas reservoirs, Tamil
Nadu has also been pleading for a solution for a long time on two other issues
the printing of the final award in the
Union Gazette, and the constitution of
the Cauvery Management Board (CMB).
The first demand was met in 2013 after
persistent pressure from the Tamil Nadu
government. The second demand is also
almost met as the Supreme Court in its
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

OCTOBER 8, 2016

order on 20 September 2016 directed the

Government of India to constitute the
CMB within four weeks.
Will the CMB Help?
The CMB is basically a body of officials to
be constituted by the Government of India.
Its job is to implement the directions of
the tribunal for water-sharing between
states. Thus the final award states,
An inter-state forum to be called Cauvery
Management Board (hereinafter referred to
as the Board) shall be established for the
purpose of securing compliance and implementation of the final decision and directions of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
(hereinafter referred as the Orders). (p 224,
Volume 5, Chapter 8, the Cauvery Water
Tribunal Final Award 2007)

The chairman of the board shall be an

irrigation engineer of repute of the rank
of chief engineer having not less than 20
years of experience supported by two
full-time members, two representatives
from the central government and representatives from all basin states. As laid
down in the final award, the CMB is
empowered to take control of all reservoirs
and distribute water among the basin
states as provided for in the final award
both in normal and deficit years. Most
important, the monthly schedule of water
release will also be strictly adhered to as
indicated in the final award. This is the
aspect that Karnataka dislikes but Tamil
Nadu celebrates. One states defeat is
another states victory.
To summarise, before 1924 and between
1924 and 1974, there were minor protests but these were sporadic and hardly
noticed. Between 1974 and 1990, the dispute got intensified and distrust had already been built up. After 1990 (post tribunal), the crisis had set in. After this,
the problem would inevitably be catastrophic, not only for the farmers of the
Cauvery basin but also for the entire
nation. Are we heading towards a catastrophic state of affairs?
Key Contestations
Karnataka maintains that the state suffered due to the discriminated past. It
alleges that the British rulers successfully frustrated all attempts to develop
irrigation infrastructure in the then
Mysore State and that they were more
vol lI no 41

interested in protecting the interest of

the then Madras Presidency. Therefore,
it is contended that the 1892 and 1924
agreements were imposed on the politically weak Mysore State. But, Tamil Nadu
argues that early irrigation development
in delta regions across the world is
primarily due to favourable soil, water
and topographic conditions. Furthermore, it points out that it is erroneous to
identify the Cauvery irrigation system in
Tamil Nadu with British rule because
Tamil Nadus history dates back to second
century AD. Therefore, it was inevitable
that successive governments sought
to protect the interests of the lower
riparian state.
Karnatakas farmers believe that the
Tamil Nadu farmers grow three paddy
crops in a year using the Cauvery water.
The main line of argument was that if
farmers of Tamil Nadu can grow three
crops in a year, should not Karnataka
farmers be allowed to grow at least one
crop? This is a wrong contestation. First
of all, kuruvai, thaladi and samba are
three different agricultural seasons and
not three crops. While kuruvai and
thaladi are short duration seasons, samba is of a long duration. The kuruvai
coincides with the south-west monsoon
seasonsown in June and harvested in
September. On the same land, thaladi is
raised coinciding with the north-east
monsoonsown in October and harvested in January. After raising two short
duration crops, the samba crop (long
duration season) cannot be grown on
these lands. Furthermore, even in good
rainfall years, water from the Mettur
dam is available only for seven and at
most eight months (from mid-June to
mid-January) during which time it is
impossible to raise three crops.
Kuruvai and thaladi season crops are
grown in areas where there is groundwater potential. The total command area
in the delta districts is 12.5 lakh acres. In
good rainfall years, kuruvai paddy is
grown only in 4.5 lakh acres and in the
same lands the thaladi crop is raised. In
the remaining segment of the command,
a single cropsamba paddyis grown.
At the moment, the kuruvai crop has
been wiped out except in some areas
where there is access to groundwater.
11

COMMENTARY

Karnataka argues that Tamil Nadu

could save lots of water by changing crop
patternfrom mono-cropped paddy to
some other less water-intensive crops.
The general belief that prevails among
farmers of Karnataka is that paddy is the
only crop grown in the entire Cauvery
command area in Tamil Nadu. This is
not true. First of all, the cropping pattern has already undergone a radical
shift from paddy to other crops such as
pulses, cotton, oil seeds, vegetables, etc,
in particular in the western part of the
delta. In the eastern part of the delta,
many have shifted from paddy wherever
possible. Paddy is grown extensively in
the eastern part of the delta due to the
prevailing soil conditions. Other crops
have been experimented with but without much success. Therefore, it is not by
choice that delta farmers have opted for
a mono-paddy culture. Furthermore, the
eastern delta is a cyclone-prone zone.
Crops other than paddy will not withstand
heavy downpours that flood the region
for weeks. The most significant fact,
however, is increasing soil salinity that
has occurred gradually over time due to
the long history of flood irrigation in the
delta districts of Tamil Nadu. At the
moment, in many sections in the eastern
part of the delta, the land has become
unsuitable for crops other than paddy.
There is a general notion in Karnataka
that Tamil Nadu has the benefit of two
monsoonssouth-west and north-east.
Therefore, Karnataka feels that the water
needs of Tamil Nadu are lower than what
it demands. On the other hand, Karnataka
feels that it has the benefit of only one
monsoon. Some clarifications are necessary here. Although the two monsoons
together fetch a rainfall of over 1,000
mm to the delta districts, it is unevenly
distributed. Furthermore, the north-east
monsoon months also see heavy downpours as well as cyclones and storms.
Given its flat topography, there is no
scope for saving water through embankments in the delta region. Consequently,
the water during these heavy rains inundates standing crops and flows into the
sea. As a result, farmers lose their crops,
more so in Nagapattinam district.
Karnataka contends that the available
groundwater potential in the delta
12

districts of Tamil Nadu is understated. In

this regard, the data published by the
Central Groundwater Board gives a different picture. Groundwater in the entire Nagapattinam district is saline and
over-exploited. Thiruvarur is also becoming saline in most parts and remains
critical. Only in Thanjavur district is
groundwater somewhat better.
It is contended that although Karnataka
contributes 425 tmcft or 53.8% of the total
supply in the basin and Tamil Nadu
contributes only 253 tmcft or 31.9% of
the total supply, Karnataka is denied its
rightful share. It is argued that if contribution of water were the criteria for distribution, Karnataka stands to gain
more. It is also indicated that such has
been the criteria used by the authorities
in the distribution of river waters of the
Beas between Punjab and Haryana and
the Bachhawat Commissions award on
the distribution formula between Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh
of the Krishna River waters.
Looking beyond the Dispute
Historically, farmers in the Tamil Nadu
part of the delta practise the flood irrigation method through open cut channels.
In some parts of the delta, due to particular
topographic reasons, farmers practise
the plot-to-plot irrigation technique. As
the Thanjavur delta is a plain terrain
from the Grand Anicut to the sea, gently
sloping from west to east, the delta has
been subjected to flood irrigation for
centuries, that is, water flowing from field
to field. The open cut channel method is
followed in most parts of the Cauvery
command in Karnataka also. Therefore,
there is vast scope for saving water
through modernising canal networks and
through improved irrigation methods in
both the major riparian states. Through
modernisation of canal networks and by
installing appropriate modern control
structures, wastages and leakages of
water can be checked and at least 30%
of water can be saved.
Non-agricultural Uses
Cauvery water provides drinking water
for numerous villages, towns and cities
in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. A
large number of industries in both states

are also dependent upon the Cauvery for

their water needs. It is estimated that
urban and rural areas in Karnataka
require 16 tmcft of water. Besides,
Bengaluru city alone would need another
30 tmcft. Industries located in the Karnataka part of the basin require 4 tmcft.
Therefore, the total non-agricultural
water need for Karnataka is of the order
of 50 tmcft (including the estimated
requirement for Bengaluru city).
Tamil Nadus case is much more
severe. Over one-third of its population
lives in the Cauvery basin and depends
upon the river Cauvery for virtually all
its needs. Besides, there has been a high
degree of urbanisation in the state
(48%). In the context of non-agricultural
water needs, two issues need to be kept
in mind. One, both drinking and industrial water needs are growing along
with the increasing degree of urbanisation and population growth, and two,
non-agricultural water requirements need
to be met throughout the year.
The river and its tributaries in Tamil
Nadu as well in Karnataka are quite
heavily polluted due to discharge of sewage and industrial effluents in the river.
The major tributaries of the Cauvery in
Tamil Nadu are Bhavani, Amaravathi,
Noyyal and Kodaganaru. Large quantities of effluents from tanneries, dyeing
and bleaching, chemicals, textiles, paper
and sugar industries are discharged into
them. Numerous large and medium towns
also dump their wastes in these rivers.
Deltas the world over become fertile
because of the large amount of sediment
that flows into them. Furthermore, this
sediment flow also keeps deltas above
sea level. In other words, in the absence
of sediment flow, the sea and the delta
land (which is nothing but a plain sheet
of land at sea level) would not have got
separated. In order to have this distinction between sea level and the delta
land, regular sediment flow is critical.
Yet, the world over, sediment flows
have been either reduced drastically or
reduced to nothing due to human interventions in rivers. The Cauvery River
and the delta is no exception. The reservoirs constructed upstream have literally
withheld all the sediments and as a consequence delta subsidence is taking place.

OCTOBER 8, 2016

vol lI no 41

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

COMMENTARY

Currently, over 80% of Nagapattinam

district in the eastern delta is under low
elevation coastal zone facing the threat
of delta subsidence. At the same time, all
the reservoirs upstream (such as KRS,
Mettur, etc) are losing their storage
capacity due to heavy silt accumulation.
Legal Perspectives
and Judicial Interventions
Several principles and doctrines have
evolved for resolving disputes that occur
between nations or states. These include
doctrines like the Harmon doctrine, the
principle of natural flow, the doctrine of
prior appropriation, the theory of community interest, the theory of equitable
apportionment and the Helsinki rules.
Of all these, Helsinki rules are best
known and reasonably comprehensive
and have been adopted by the International Law Association.
Let us consider the specific case of the
Cauvery water dispute. While Tamil
Nadu attempts to protect its rights over
the Cauvery by invoking the doctrine of
prior appropriation rights, Karnataka
tends to go along with the Harmon doctrine or what is called upholding absolute territorial integrity. According to
this principle, a riparian state is the sole
authority and can do what it pleases
with its waters. Both are hardline positions. The dictum that is widely appreciated is that nobody or a community or
even a nation can claim absolute ownership rights over the flowing water/river
but can enjoy the use rights.
In a federal system such as in India,
one should expect a series of interstate
water disputes. Therefore, the Cauvery
water dispute is no surprise. Unlike in
the case of international transboundary
rivers, the contending parties in an
intra-national river dispute cannot resort
to the option of armed conflict. Therefore, the options are restricted to available legal mechanisms within the national/
democratic framework. In India, the
Interstate Water Disputes Act 1956 (ISWD
Act) was enacted as per the provisions of
Article 262 of the Constitution. This act
was amended in 2002 in line with the
recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission. The Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal was constituted on 2 June
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

OCTOBER 8, 2016

1990. Provisions of the act bar the intervention of even the Supreme Court in
the adjudication process. In the case of
the Cauvery water dispute, after the declaration of the final award in 2007, the
contending states had the right to go
back to the tribunal with a review petition
for a supplementary award. Instead, they
approached the Supreme Court with a
special leave petition (SLP). The Supreme
Court admitted the SLPs even though the
ISWD Act bars its intervention. Instead
of admitting them, the Supreme Court
could have directed the SLPs to the tribunal. It is now more than eight years since
the Supreme Court admitted these SLPs
and no resolution has been reached.
Many believed the announcement of
the final award in 2007 and the subsequent gazetting of it in 2013 would put
an end to the conflict. But nothing tangible has happened. Now the latest
Supreme Court ruling that the CMB
should be constituted within four weeks
has given new hope to Tamil Nadu.
Whether the CMB will put an end to the
dispute is a trillion dollar question. It is
precisely in this context that the Track
Two diplomacy or the alternate dispute
resolution mechanism gains significance.
The Alternative Approach
A civil society dialogue or what is
referred to as Track Two diplomacy is
basically a platform where all those
concerned are brought together for a
sustained dialogue. This is a widely
advocated measure all over the world
for resolving volatile and explosive
situations, in particular, relating to
natural resource management. In the
process of development of a society and
of the use of natural resources, conflicts
among users are inevitable. As scarcity
conditions intensify, conflicts also intensify. The use of natural resources
can be made sustainable and reasonably
conflict-free with the appropriate legal
and institutional intervention. But
when everything fails, what is the way
out? Civil society dialogues or what I
may call multi-stakeholders dialogues
(MSD) may help under such circumstances. MSD offer a cordial climate where
conflicts could be turned into opportunities for an effective and fruitful
vol lI no 41

collaboration to achieve sustainable

development.
The MSD initiative started in the Cauvery basin with two dialogue workshops
organised in 2003, one in Chennai and
the other in Bengaluru attended by 60
farmers and farmers leaders each from
Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Subsequently,
a committee called Cauvery Family was
constituted with 12 members from each
state with the former water resources
secretary, Ramaswamy Iyer and Bhavani
Shankar from Karnataka as advisers.
Since then, the Cauvery Family has met
18 times. The last time it met was in
2012. The committee could arrive at five
water-sharing formulae that were finally
reduced to one. Due to lack of political
patronage, this initiative is currently
dormant. One thing can be said with
confidence: the Cauvery Family played a
key role in suppressing violence during
all deficit years during the period
200312 when it was active. Furthermore, no violence of the kind that was
witnessed in 1990 (when the interim
award was announced) was repeated in
2007, when the final award was declared. There is great scope to make the
Cauvery Family active provided there is
assured political patronage.
Interstate water disputes should be
seen in the overall context of industrialisation, urbanisation, overall growth rate
of the state economy, employment and
unemployment rates, per capita income
and so on. Overall prosperity and growth
rate also contribute significantly to water
demand and hence inflame interstate
water disputes. Both Tamil Nadu and
Karnataka are very advanced in all these
respects and hence the increasing intensity of the dispute. In the face of the
increasing demands from various sectors
and increasing pollution of the Cauvery
River, the contending states and water
users should act collectively. In this
context it is necessary to examine to
what extent the Cauvery basin in both
states is stressed and indicate the sources
of stress. Such information sharing between states is absolutely necessary and
ideally should be done through a common information portal.
There are several other issues that
demand immediate attention:
13

COMMENTARY

Modernisation of the canal network

and control structures in both states
which help to save water substantially.
Consolidation of knowledge on various
issues such as catchment treatment, deforestation in the upper catchment, competing demand for water across various
sectors, increasing pollution load, sand
mining, seawater intrusion and increasing
salinity in the delta and so on. Knowledge consolidation and knowledge sharing between states is very important because natural resources are at high risk.
Water management is not only about
water-sharing but also sharing of scientific details pertaining to knowledge and
experiences such as monsoon and rainfall conditions, soil conditions, crop technology, flood management and water
conservation techniques.
Sediment management and flow is
crucial for delta management and sustainability. This needs to be addressed by
both states because silt deposits in the
reservoirs have reduced the storage
levels in all reservoirs and as a consequence the delta is sinking.
In addition, overarching issues (such
as climate change impacts) in both states
should be thoroughly researched and
results should be shared.
On the whole, an engagement in its
entirety in the Cauvery River basin, usually limited to water sharing, would give
an entirely different picture of basin
management. Since rivers do not have
state boundaries, it is important to follow such a broad and mature approach
with a view to protecting the ecological
and environmental standards as well as
to ensure livelihoods security.
Conclusions
It is of utmost importance to recognise
the dictum that a river gets its meaning
only when it flows and acknowledge the
fact the river is nobodys private property.
At the moment, the states have grossly
disrespected this dictum. In the particular context of Cauvery, the issue has
been hijacked by politics and political
bosses for their political advantage.
They do not want to speak the truth.
Instead they back the agitators who are
actually not farmers; most of them belong
to Kannada (or Tamil) chauvinistic groups,
14

urban unemployed youth and some

hooligans who always take advantage of
the fluid situation.
The judicial orders may give temporary
relief to Tamil Nadu but only along with
more unpleasantness coupled with extreme forms of violence. The question
that we have to ask is whether we will
see this same situation during every
deficit year, or whether the CMB will
give a permanent solution and peace in
the basin states.
In a federal democracy such as India,
ideally everyone should strictly adhere
to judicial pronouncements. But conditions and objective reasoning are
changing over time. The Cauvery water
issue is no exception to this generalised
principle. Its ecology, environment,
command areas, water uses and water
users and politics have changed. The judiciary may not take into account these
changes while pronouncing judgments.
Under these changing circumstances,
there is a need for a rethink on all legal
instruments and their efficacy in dealing with the interstate water disputes.
Precisely for these reasons, one would

also like to raise questions regarding the

competence of tribunal members (who
are judges) in dealing with the water
needs of states.
A series of questions also need answers
rather urgently with particular reference to basin management. Do governments make conscious efforts to protect
the commons, the environment and ecosystems? Is there any plan for accounting for environmental degradation? Is
there any plan for accounting for ecosystem losses? Is there anything called a
National Adaptation Plan for the poor
and the most vulnerable? Do we have
any estimates on possible climate change
impacts on agriculture and overall gross
domestic product? In what way have
governments strengthened our early
warning systems and disaster risk reduction strategies? All coping measures
hitherto undertaken have been ad hoc
and structural in nature with almost no
effect. What we need therefore is longterm comprehensive adaptive strategies
for basin management in order to protect the livelihoods of millions, and the
environment.

Journal Rank of EPW

Economic and Political Weekly is indexed on Scopus, the largest abstract and citation
database of peer-reviewed literature, which is prepared by Elsevier N V (bit.ly/2dxMFOh).
Scopus has indexed research papers that have been published in EPW from 2008 onwards.
The Scopus database journal ranks country-wise and journal-wise. It provides three broad sets
of rankings: (i) Number of Citations, (ii) H-Index, and (iii) Scimago Journal and Country Rank.
Presented below are EPWs ranks in 2015 in India, Asia and globally, according to the total cites
(3 years) indicator.

Highest among 37 Indian social science journals and second highest among 187 social
science journals ranked in Asia.

Highest among 38 journals in the category, Economics, Econometrics, and Finance in the
Asia region, and 37th among 881 journals globally.

Highest among 23 journals in the category, Sociology and Political Science in the Asia
region, and 17th among 951 journals globally.

Between 2009 and 2015, EPWs citations in three categories (Economics, Econometrics,
and Finance; Political Science and International Relations; and Sociology and Political
Science) were always in the second quartile of all citations recorded globally in the Scopus
database.

For a summary of statistics on EPW on Scopus, including of the other journal rank indicators
please see (bit.ly/2dDDZmG).
EPW consults referees from a database of 200+ academicians in different fields of the social
sciences on papers that are published in the Special Article and Notes sections.
OCTOBER 8, 2016

vol lI no 41

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

COMMENTARY

Both the major riparian statesTamil

Nadu and Karnatakahave taken hard
positions. The issue has reached such a
level that they have been refraining
from moving away from their respective
hard lines for fear of losing popularity.
Under changing conditions, both the
principles are seemingly insincere in
addressing the needs of both states. Indeed, electoral politics in both states and
at the centre have contributed to the
current state of bitterness in the Cauvery

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

OCTOBER 8, 2016

basin states. Even if farmers fight for

what they consider their legitimate
rights, it is the responsibility of the
respective state governments and political parties to educate and create awareness among the farming community about
the significance and the need to protect
constitutional provisions. Unfortunately, the state governments have comprehensively failed in their duty in both
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Winning
the popularity of farmers has always

vol lI no 41

dominated the political agenda in both

the states. It is high time political parties
in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka realise
their past deeds and resolve this longpending dispute in the national interest.
After all, the governments and all pillars of democracy (including judiciary)
are supposed to work for the welfare
of people. They need to deliver and
contribute to bridging the deficit in
governance as well as to bridging the
trust deficit.

15