In India it is a very rare phenomenon to find a journal having rich heritage and maintaining high values of journalism like the Express, publishing articles of substandard nature, full of unreal and incorrect matter.
It is unfortunate to find Babu Jayakumar’s ‘Holding on to a 31-year-old joke’ (TNIE, October 22), which is a crude presentation and a cruel joke distorting historical facts. Even after 31 years of controversy, my reporter friend does not know where exactly the Mullaperiyar (or Mullaiperiyar) dam is situated. The real facts cannot be twisted or concocted by the use of flowery and jocular language.
The writer should know that the Mullaperiyar dam is located in Idukki district, Kerala. One has to travel a distance of more than 10 km across the waters of the Periyar lake to reach Kumily town, which borders Kerala and Tamil Nadu. It is written in the article that the dam was commissioned in 1895, which is true. Then how can the present age of the structure be reported as 104 years in 2009?
Babu Jayakumar seems not aware of the legal meaning of Lease Deed. He also doesn’t know the difference between a Lease Deed and a Treaty. The statement that we will get absolute right over everything in leased lands is incorrect and absurd. It seems that the author is expressing his legal ignorance. Moreover this deed is not a treaty as stated. It is a Lease Deed, and Tamil Nadu government is nothing but a lessee like anyone else and does not enjoy special privileges. The author should have referred to a legal dictionary before making the statement that it is a treaty. The lessee cannot cut even a single tree from the leased land without necessary permission from Kerala. Kerala Police deployed at Mullaperiyar dam is responsible for the security of the structure. It is not an enclave inside Kerala, but it is within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. The law and order, forest and every other responsible state functions envisaged in the Constitution are the responsibilities of Kerala. Only the right to store water for diversion to Tamil Nadu rest with that state.
The author has gone to the extent of dreaming a Kerala engineer suggesting a ‘burst’ of the dam for supplying water for filling the downstream Idukki reservoir. It is a fact that the survey and detailed investigation for Idukki Project was started in 1950s by the Central Water and Power Commission, well before the signing of supplemental agreements — one for renewal of the leased deed and other for permitting producing electricity from Mullaperiyar waters, on May 29, 1970. We could have refrained from signing the Mullaperiyar supplemental agreements in 1970, if Kerala had any intention of augmenting Idukki by Mullaperiyar waters. Kerala does not need the contribution from Mullaperiyar for filling the Idukki reservoir. Actually Kerala permitted Tamil Nadu in 1956 to increase the capacity of tunnel, from 1,300 cusecs to 2,100 cusecs, which takes Mullaperiyar waters to Kambam Valley while the survey for Idukki was in progress. So naturally this increased capacity of the tunnel resulted in emptying the Mullaperiyar reservoir at a faster rate and reduced the spill to Kerala side. This is evident from the fact that the spilling of Mullaperiyar was reduced even after reducing the FRL in 1979. As per the data maintained by Tamil Nadu PWD, the number of spill years between 1911-1979 was 40 years out of 69 years (55 per cent) but surprisingly it was reduced to 13 years out of 29 years (41 per cent) between 1979-2008. It may be noted that the 50 per cent dependable diversion from Mullaperiyar to Tamil Nadu has been increased from 18.2 TMC (pre 1979) to 22.3 TMC (post 1979), which was admitted by Tamil Nadu’s official witness in the Supreme Court. So the reduction of FRL compelled TN engineers to do a better water management and naturally the spill got reduced and water flow to Tamil Nadu has been increased. Any spill from Mullaperiyar due to hydrological reasons will of course flow to Idukki only, which Kerala cannot but accept, which is hardly four per cent of the total diversion.
The waters of Mullaperiyar cannot be accommodated by the Idukki reservoir if both reservoirs are at FRL or close to FRL, which is a phenomenon happening once in every five years (six out of last 29 years) during the North East Monsoon. A breach of Mullaperiyar dam would not be a joke but will wash away the lives and properties of more than a lakh of inhabitants up to Idukki. A cascading failure of Mullaperiyar and Idukki dams will result in a more severe catastrophe affecting more than 40 lakh people of Kerala. The reporter might be happy that none of the people of Tamil Nadu will have to face the danger of a collapse of the Mullaperiyar, but Keralites who are donating water to Tamil Nadu will have to pay a heavy price.
Tamil Nadu should agree to the construction of a replacement dam at Mullaperiyar if it deserves to have continued supply of water. That is why a joint team of engineers of Kerala and Tamil Nadu investigated and located an alternative site for a new dam in 1979. Now the expert studies conducted by credible organisations like IIT Delhi and IIT Roorkee have categorically stated that the present Mullaperiyar dam is hydrologically and seismically unsafe. It is also a technical finding that any further strengthening of this 114-year-old dam will not help.
The reporter’s ignorance is again exposed by his crocodile tears regarding 8,000 hectares of barren land created by lowering the water level to 136 feet. The extent of ayacut area has only increased from 1.70 lakh acres in 1979 to 2.31 lakh acres in 1994 even after reducing the water level. This can be ascertained from details in the book A History of Periyar Dam with Century Long Performance written by A Mohana Krishnan, advisor to Tamil Nadu. This fact was also admitted in the Supreme Court by R Subramanian, witness for Tamil Nadu government in the present suit.
The article contains faulty and misleading information, which will only help to create enmity between the two otherwise friendly neighbours. There is no need to fear that Kerala’s new dam proposal is for denying water to Tamil Nadu. The unanimous resolution passed by the Kerala Assembly recently pronounced that the new dam is for ensuring continued supply of water to Tamil Nadu.
Kerala did not fail to supply the entire drinking water requirements of Coimbatore Corporation from Siruvani dam, which is constructed, owned and maintained by Kerala, even when Tamil Nadu failed to supply the agreed quantity of water for irrigation as per PAP Agreement to Palakkad district. There was a vehement appeal from the agitated farmers to stop supplying water till Tamil Nadu reciprocated. The government of Kerala showed a firm and statesman-like attitude and never stopped the supply of drinking water. This is ample proof of the real intention behind the construction of a new replacement dam at Mullaperiyar.
(The author is member, Mullaperiyar Special Cell, Government of Kerala)
