<p>When the Union government recently told the Lok Sabha that the Upper Bhadra Irrigation Project is not a national project, it did more than contradict an earlier assurance. It revealed how political expediency can override parliamentary commitments, federal principles, and the legitimate needs of drought-prone regions. </p><p>In February 2022, then Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai announced that the High-Powered Steering Committee of the Central Water Commission had recommended national project status for the Upper Bhadra scheme, after a technical scrutiny by the Ministry of Jal Shakti. A year later, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, presenting the 2023 Budget on the eve of the Karnataka assembly elections, announced a Rs 5,300-crore grant to accelerate the project. </p><p>Two years on, not a single paisa has been released. After the BJP’s defeat in the 2023 state elections, the Centre has steadily retreated, now arguing that the project does not fall under any centrally sponsored scheme and, therefore, does not qualify for assistance. If the budget adopted by the Parliament does not bind the Union government, what does?</p>.<p>The Upper Bhadra Project is designed to provide irrigation, drinking water support, and groundwater recharge across taluks in Chikkamagaluru, Chitradurga, Tumakuru, and Davanagere – regions long trapped in cycles of crop failure, distress migration, and fluoride contamination. </p><p>Karnataka has maintained that the project uses water that is well within allocations made by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal. Why, then, the hesitation? Is the Centre wary of upsetting the Andhra Pradesh government, led by an important National Democratic Alliance partner, that has opposed certain aspects of the project?</p>.<p>The implications go far beyond one irrigation project. Withholding funds announced on the floor of Parliament strikes at the sanctity of the budget itself. It weakens cooperative federalism by converting development assistance into a partisan instrument of reward and punishment. Karnataka, one of the country’s largest contributors to the national exchequer, cannot be penalised for an electoral verdict that went against the BJP. </p><p>The state was forced to approach the Supreme Court earlier to secure drought relief dues, and it has now made clear that the same route is being considered for Upper Bhadra. That a state must repeatedly knock on the doors of the judiciary to claim its rightful share signals a breakdown of institutional trust. This is not just a battle for water. It is a test of whether constitutional guarantees and parliamentary assurances still carry meaning once the ballots are counted.</p>
<p>When the Union government recently told the Lok Sabha that the Upper Bhadra Irrigation Project is not a national project, it did more than contradict an earlier assurance. It revealed how political expediency can override parliamentary commitments, federal principles, and the legitimate needs of drought-prone regions. </p><p>In February 2022, then Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai announced that the High-Powered Steering Committee of the Central Water Commission had recommended national project status for the Upper Bhadra scheme, after a technical scrutiny by the Ministry of Jal Shakti. A year later, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, presenting the 2023 Budget on the eve of the Karnataka assembly elections, announced a Rs 5,300-crore grant to accelerate the project. </p><p>Two years on, not a single paisa has been released. After the BJP’s defeat in the 2023 state elections, the Centre has steadily retreated, now arguing that the project does not fall under any centrally sponsored scheme and, therefore, does not qualify for assistance. If the budget adopted by the Parliament does not bind the Union government, what does?</p>.<p>The Upper Bhadra Project is designed to provide irrigation, drinking water support, and groundwater recharge across taluks in Chikkamagaluru, Chitradurga, Tumakuru, and Davanagere – regions long trapped in cycles of crop failure, distress migration, and fluoride contamination. </p><p>Karnataka has maintained that the project uses water that is well within allocations made by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal. Why, then, the hesitation? Is the Centre wary of upsetting the Andhra Pradesh government, led by an important National Democratic Alliance partner, that has opposed certain aspects of the project?</p>.<p>The implications go far beyond one irrigation project. Withholding funds announced on the floor of Parliament strikes at the sanctity of the budget itself. It weakens cooperative federalism by converting development assistance into a partisan instrument of reward and punishment. Karnataka, one of the country’s largest contributors to the national exchequer, cannot be penalised for an electoral verdict that went against the BJP. </p><p>The state was forced to approach the Supreme Court earlier to secure drought relief dues, and it has now made clear that the same route is being considered for Upper Bhadra. That a state must repeatedly knock on the doors of the judiciary to claim its rightful share signals a breakdown of institutional trust. This is not just a battle for water. It is a test of whether constitutional guarantees and parliamentary assurances still carry meaning once the ballots are counted.</p>
