As tempers rage outside, quiet flows the Cauvery

The Cauvery Water Monitoring Authority has ordered Karnataka to release 5,000 cusecs of water per day to Tamil Nadu. This has led to significant concern among the farmers in the Cauvery basin in Karnataka. This is a recurring issue that happens every time rain fails and reservoir levels drop to critical levels. I was a witness to a more severe instance of this in 2002, during my tenure as the Chief Secretary. Additionally, we had to contend with an uncompromising chief minister, J Jayalalaithaa, in Tamil Nadu, who held a steadfast, one-sided stand.

A little bit of history would help in understanding the complexities of the dispute. The Cauvery water dispute between the two states is more than a century old, going back to the 19th century, when the then Madras Presidency came under British rule and the then Mysore state (now part of the larger Karnataka) was ruled by a prince, the Maharaja of Mysore. Madras, therefore, had a more dominant say in the final decision.

The origin of the dispute goes back to two agreements signed between Madras and Mysore, one in 1892 and another in 1924. The 1892 agreement was based on the principle that “the upper riparian state (i.e., Mysore) must obtain the consent of the lower riparian state (Madras) for any construction activity, viz., reservoirs on the Cauvery”. Thus, Mysore was at a disadvantage, and things came to a head during the time of Nalwadi Krishnaraja Wadiyar when Mysore proposed building the Kannambadi dam (near Mysore—now KRS dam) planned by M Visveswaraya to store 41.5 tmcft of water. According to the agreement, it sought the consent of the British government, which accorded permission only for storage of 11 tmcft. On appeal by Mysore state, the British government referred the matter for arbitration, but the arbitrator upheld the earlier decision of 11 tmcft. However, Mysore did not give up and continued negotiations, finally resulting in the agreement of 1924, which provided for certain claims that the agreement would be open for negotiations after a period of 50 years.

After Independence, negotiations continued, but no positive results were forthcoming. Karnataka was in a hurry to initiate new irrigation projects as its irrigated area was far below its potential. Tamil Nadu took the stand that it had already developed 30 lakh acres of land (almost their full potential) and relied on the existing pattern of usage, and any change would adversely affect the livelihood of lakhs of their farmers. Karnataka, however, went ahead and built dams across the Hemavathy and Harangi rivers, which helped increase its area under irrigation. As the negotiations continued for decades but proved futile, the Government of India decided to constitute the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 1990. Far from a quick resolution of the dispute, the arguments before the Tribunal lasted for 17 long years, and it was only in 2007 (February 5) that the Tribunal gave its award. According to the award, the shares of different states were fixed as follows: Tamil Nadu: 419 tmcft; Karnataka: 282 tmcft; Kerala: 30 tmcft; and Pondichery: 7 tmcft.

Earlier, in 2002, there was a severe drought with rains failing in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, and there were protests in both states. The agitation reached a pitch in Karnataka when one of the protesters died. In great anguish, the then chief minister, SM Krishna, who hailed from Mandya, undertook a padayatra from Bangalore to Mandya.

Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu filed a petition in the Supreme Court, and the apex court ordered Karnataka to release 6,000 cusecs of water per day. Karnataka, however, did not comply with the court order as the tempers amongst farmers, particularly in Mandya, were already running high. Tamil Nadu filed a contempt of court case against Karnataka, making both the chief minister and the chief secretary respondents.

Meanwhile, the Cauvery River Water Authority, headed by the Prime Minister and with the chief ministers of the states concerned as members, constituted to resolve water disputes between states, convened a meeting. The meeting was attended by all the members with their teams in full strength, including those from the Union government.

After a heated discussion on both sides, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a master of compromise, announced his decision. The Chief Minister of TN, Jayalalithaa, did not agree with the decision and walked out in protest. She, however, filed a contempt case against the Karnataka chief minister and chief secretary for not complying with the orders of the Supreme Court. The case dragged on for a long time, with the apex court making some unfavourable comments against Karnataka and its chief minister. Both the CM and I had to spend a lot of time visiting Delhi and attending to the court case.

The contempt case was coming to a head, and there was every possibility of the SC passing an order holding the CM and the Chief Secretary guilty of having committed contempt and awarding some kind of punishment. I had to take a strong stand in the Cabinet meeting and inform the members that we must comply with the apex court orders and release water to TN, failing which the state would have to face severe embarrassment. Finally, the Cabinet gave its approval, and we released the required water to TN. However, the contempt case was kept pending for a long time, and SM Krishna and I used to receive notices from the SC even after we had ceased to be in office, and the charges were finally dropped after about five years.

Now, I find the Cauvery Monitoring Authority has ordered the release of 5,000 cusecs of water per day to TN. In spite of protests from farmers against the release of such water in view of the low levels in the reservoirs, the state government has taken a cautious stand and has started releasing water to TN.

The real issue is our perennial reliance on the southwest monsoon, and whenever rains fail and reservoirs get near empty (which seems to happen once every 7–10 years), the problem flares up. The only solution to the problem lies in mutual dialogue and arriving at an amicable solution, just for a few months, by which time nature comes to the rescue through rain. Perhaps this is the most opportune time, when the parties of the two state governments are part of the I.N.D.I.A team for the two chief ministers to extend their hands of cooperation and set up a permanent mechanism to resolve such issues whenever there is a water crisis.

(The writer is a former chief secretary, Government of Karnataka)