<p>A decade and a half after the KWDT ruled that Maharashtra had failed to make a case against the raising of the height of Almatti dam, the state has once again sought to reopen what is clearly a ‘settled issue’ by raising a dispute regarding the full height of the dam. In a manner of speaking, Rip Van Winkle has been roused!</p>.<p>In 2004, Maharashtra contended before the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal that the full reservoir level (FRL) of the Almatti dam at 524.256 metres would cause a ‘backwater effect’ by flooding Sangli district. It argued that the Almatti dam height should be confined to 512 metres. S Y Shukla, the witness on behalf of Maharashtra before the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal, admitted that “there will be no submergence in the State of Maharashtra as a consequence of an increase in FRL of the Almatti Dam, except for the effect of siltation which has set in Almatti Reservoir.”</p>.<p>Acknowledging the divergent positions of Karnataka and Maharashtra, the Tribunal issued an order on October 16, 2008, in exercise of its power under Section 9(2) of the Inter-State Water Disputes (ISWD) Act, “requiring Karnataka to carry out the survey to find out actual siltation/sedimentation as may have taken place in Almatti Reservoir by employing modern methods for carrying out such an operation, by hydrographic survey or any other similar or better scientific method.”</p>.<p>When the results of the survey were submitted, the Tribunal noted, “According to the study, there was no backwater effect or submergence on account of very little siltation in the Hipparagi and Almatti Dam.” The Tribunal further noted that “there is no rise in water level from the pre-dam stage in the State of Maharashtra in a period of 100 years of operation of the reservoir”.</p>.<p>During the reference proceedings under Section 5(3) of the ISWD Act in 2013, Maharashtra neither challenged these findings nor filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court thereafter. Yet recently, Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar disclosed that Maharashtra has once again raised this issue before the Centre.</p>.<p>This is not the first time Maharashtra has revisited issues long considered resolved.</p>.<p>After the fast unto death by freedom fighter Potti Sriramulu, it became increasingly clear that Indian states had to be reorganised on a linguistic basis. In December 1953, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru appointed the States Reorganisation Commission. This Commission—headed by retired Chief Justice of India Fazal Ali, with H N Kunzru and K M Panikkar as members—submitted a report on September 30, 1955, recommending a comprehensive restructuring of Indian states.</p>.<p>A key factor in the Mahajan Commission’s 1966 recommendation to merge Belagavi (then Belgaum) with the then Mysore State was linguistic demographics. The 1881 census had recorded that 64.39 per cent of Belagavi’s population was Kannada-speaking, while 26.04 per cent was Marathi-speaking. Further historical evidence supports this.</p>.<p>John Faithfull Fleet, in The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts published in 1882, which forms a part of the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, wrote: “In defining the limits of the Kanarese language, on the west and north may be designated... As for Sholapur, which now officially counts as a Marathi district, Kanarese is still, to a great extent, the vernacular of the southeast corner of it. And there are Kanarese inscriptions of the Western Chalukyas, Kalachurya and Devagiri Yadavas of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and some later ones, at Solapur itself, and at Kudal and Mohol in that district, and at Karajgi, Kudal, and Tadwal in the Akalkot state.” </p>.<p>Karnataka never laid claim to Solapur. These were considered ‘settled issues’.</p>.<p>Almost 40 years later, on March 15, 2006, the Maharashtra government filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India, staking a claim to Belgaum. It cited “a feeling of insecurity among the Marathi-speaking people living in Karnataka in recent days”. Maharashtra’s claim extends to 814 villages and the Belgaum City. The suit, filed under Article 131(b) of the Constitution, is pending before the Supreme Court.</p>.<p>However, the suit has arguably become more academic—not just owing to the long passage of time but also in light of the creation of Telangana out of the united Andhra Pradesh. Both states speak Telugu. Similarly, Uttarakhand was carved out of Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand from Bihar—states that share a common linguistic identity. Language is no longer the decisive factor for the creation of new states.</p>.<p>Washington Irving’s tale of Rip Van Winkle tells of a man who slept through the American Revolution, only to wake up to an entirely transformed world in which his wife was dead, his ‘little’ daughter grown and happily married, and his country, America, free from colonial rule. The Dutch-American Winkle had slept peacefully through the entirety of the American Revolution.</p>.<p>Maharashtra, it would seem, continues to raise issues, oblivious to historical consensus and changing norms.</p>.<p><em>(The writer, a former legal advisor to the Government of Karnataka, is an advocate, Supreme Court of India)</em></p>
<p>A decade and a half after the KWDT ruled that Maharashtra had failed to make a case against the raising of the height of Almatti dam, the state has once again sought to reopen what is clearly a ‘settled issue’ by raising a dispute regarding the full height of the dam. In a manner of speaking, Rip Van Winkle has been roused!</p>.<p>In 2004, Maharashtra contended before the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal that the full reservoir level (FRL) of the Almatti dam at 524.256 metres would cause a ‘backwater effect’ by flooding Sangli district. It argued that the Almatti dam height should be confined to 512 metres. S Y Shukla, the witness on behalf of Maharashtra before the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal, admitted that “there will be no submergence in the State of Maharashtra as a consequence of an increase in FRL of the Almatti Dam, except for the effect of siltation which has set in Almatti Reservoir.”</p>.<p>Acknowledging the divergent positions of Karnataka and Maharashtra, the Tribunal issued an order on October 16, 2008, in exercise of its power under Section 9(2) of the Inter-State Water Disputes (ISWD) Act, “requiring Karnataka to carry out the survey to find out actual siltation/sedimentation as may have taken place in Almatti Reservoir by employing modern methods for carrying out such an operation, by hydrographic survey or any other similar or better scientific method.”</p>.<p>When the results of the survey were submitted, the Tribunal noted, “According to the study, there was no backwater effect or submergence on account of very little siltation in the Hipparagi and Almatti Dam.” The Tribunal further noted that “there is no rise in water level from the pre-dam stage in the State of Maharashtra in a period of 100 years of operation of the reservoir”.</p>.<p>During the reference proceedings under Section 5(3) of the ISWD Act in 2013, Maharashtra neither challenged these findings nor filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court thereafter. Yet recently, Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar disclosed that Maharashtra has once again raised this issue before the Centre.</p>.<p>This is not the first time Maharashtra has revisited issues long considered resolved.</p>.<p>After the fast unto death by freedom fighter Potti Sriramulu, it became increasingly clear that Indian states had to be reorganised on a linguistic basis. In December 1953, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru appointed the States Reorganisation Commission. This Commission—headed by retired Chief Justice of India Fazal Ali, with H N Kunzru and K M Panikkar as members—submitted a report on September 30, 1955, recommending a comprehensive restructuring of Indian states.</p>.<p>A key factor in the Mahajan Commission’s 1966 recommendation to merge Belagavi (then Belgaum) with the then Mysore State was linguistic demographics. The 1881 census had recorded that 64.39 per cent of Belagavi’s population was Kannada-speaking, while 26.04 per cent was Marathi-speaking. Further historical evidence supports this.</p>.<p>John Faithfull Fleet, in The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts published in 1882, which forms a part of the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, wrote: “In defining the limits of the Kanarese language, on the west and north may be designated... As for Sholapur, which now officially counts as a Marathi district, Kanarese is still, to a great extent, the vernacular of the southeast corner of it. And there are Kanarese inscriptions of the Western Chalukyas, Kalachurya and Devagiri Yadavas of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and some later ones, at Solapur itself, and at Kudal and Mohol in that district, and at Karajgi, Kudal, and Tadwal in the Akalkot state.” </p>.<p>Karnataka never laid claim to Solapur. These were considered ‘settled issues’.</p>.<p>Almost 40 years later, on March 15, 2006, the Maharashtra government filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India, staking a claim to Belgaum. It cited “a feeling of insecurity among the Marathi-speaking people living in Karnataka in recent days”. Maharashtra’s claim extends to 814 villages and the Belgaum City. The suit, filed under Article 131(b) of the Constitution, is pending before the Supreme Court.</p>.<p>However, the suit has arguably become more academic—not just owing to the long passage of time but also in light of the creation of Telangana out of the united Andhra Pradesh. Both states speak Telugu. Similarly, Uttarakhand was carved out of Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand from Bihar—states that share a common linguistic identity. Language is no longer the decisive factor for the creation of new states.</p>.<p>Washington Irving’s tale of Rip Van Winkle tells of a man who slept through the American Revolution, only to wake up to an entirely transformed world in which his wife was dead, his ‘little’ daughter grown and happily married, and his country, America, free from colonial rule. The Dutch-American Winkle had slept peacefully through the entirety of the American Revolution.</p>.<p>Maharashtra, it would seem, continues to raise issues, oblivious to historical consensus and changing norms.</p>.<p><em>(The writer, a former legal advisor to the Government of Karnataka, is an advocate, Supreme Court of India)</em></p>