The renewed tussle over Cauvery water between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka calls for restraint and dialogue. The stance of either side is understandable—why Karnataka is keen on building the Mekedatu reservoir and why Tamil Nadu sees a potential threat to its water rights in the upper riparian state’s intentions. However, any resolution requires balanced consideration, expert review and mature handling devoid of politics or rhetoric. The Cauvery has been at the centre of a decades-long interstate quarrel that has, beyond intense legal battles, led to bloody violence on both sides. After such a long and winding course, the issue is breaking banks again this year because of low rainfall pressuring legislators on both sides.
Karnataka has projected Mekedatu primarily as a balancing reservoir to supply drinking water to Bengaluru. It has maintained that the dam has no irrigation purpose and would not alter water sharing. However, Tamil Nadu sees it as an attempt to impound more than Karnataka’s allotted share. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Joseph Vijay has sought the Prime Minister’s intervention to protect Tamil Nadu’s interests and objected to the Centre’s stand—following the Supreme Court’s February 2018 judgement—that Karnataka does not require the lower riparian states’ consent for a construction across the Cauvery.
One must not forget that the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal has given its final award on the dispute and the Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to the water-sharing formula with some changes. That makes it binding on all stakeholders. A mechanism involving multiple authorities is in place to monitor sharing and resolve complaints. That the system is functional is clear in the fact that, in an order upheld by the Cauvery Water Management Authority on Thursday, the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee directed Karnataka to release 3,500 cusecs of water a day for 15 days to Tamil Nadu and, late last month, the Central Water Commission returned Karnataka’s project report for not conforming to the approved formula. This should assure all sides that a well-considered, multi-tiered system is in place.
Any solution must acknowledge both states’ requirement. The Centre has to act as a fair mediator, and the judiciary, when called upon, needs to facilitate durable solutions. Beyond ensuring a just and transparent framework, space should be left for ground-level management by experts. Above all, politicians must exercise restraint throughout the process.