Tensions over sharing waters of the monsoon rain-fed Cauvery have flared up again between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. This long-festering dispute erupts whenever there is a shortfall in rains as happened during 1995, 2002, 2012 and 2016, which triggered massive protests in Karnataka. This year, too, the rain gods have not been kind as the Cauvery basin districts have experienced a 32% rainfall deficit and the water stored in the four main dams is 52% of their total capacity. When rainfall is good, there is no problem in water sharing. Matters come to a boil only when there is a deficit and flows to Tamil Nadu diminish from the upper riparian state of Karnataka. This upsets the transplantation and harvesting of the former’s kuruvai rice crop (June to September). Around three million acres of farmland in the Cauvery delta region depends on these waters.
October is another flashpoint before the north-east monsoon sets in. This is the time for the cultivation of Tamil Nadu’s main samba paddy crop (August to January). This crop gets its water requirements from the Cauvery as well as the north-east monsoon. Besides impacting agriculture, this river meets 70-80% of the water requirements of Bengaluru and 15-20% of Chennai. Tamil Nadu is clamouring for its share of water as per the directions of the Cauvery Water Management Authority, which has passed four orders since August 12. Karnataka finds it difficult to comply with these orders keeping its own requirements in mind
The big question is why has a settlement over sharing the river waters proved elusive? The crux of the problem is that there is no mutually acceptable distress-sharing formula in years of scarcity. Only a political dialogue between the two riparian states (which should include Kerala and Puducherry as well) in a genuine spirit of give and take can lay the foundations of a durable settlement. Karnataka should stop harping on the inequity of historical agreements. Tamil Nadu, for its part, should get used to living with less and less water from the Cauvery, perhaps shifting away from water-intensive crops like paddy. According to the late economist-administrator S Guhan, the prerequisites for a solution are that it must be fair and equitable and perceived as such by both parties; that an atmosphere of goodwill and cooperation is necessary and has to be created when arriving at and implementing a settlement. He added that only an equitable settlement will be politically acceptable and unless the solution is politically accepted, it cannot be implemented however sound it might be legally and technically. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu must therefore sit across the table and work out a mutually satisfactory formula for sharing the river waters, especially in years when rainfall is deficient.
All of this is perhaps easier said than done as the biggest stumbling block is Karnataka’s assumption of primacy of rights over the Cauvery as an upper riparian state. How can a party to a dispute assume the role of the judge as well? In contrast, as a lower riparian state, Tamil Nadu has been reduced to the position of a supplicant, depending on the generosity of Karnataka. This problem is not specific to the Cauvery. Delhi has been similarly treated by Haryana over the sharing of the Yamuna waters. Even West Bengal as an upper riparian state has come in the way of sharing the waters of the Teesta river with Bangladesh.