Krishna dispute needs an empathetic verdict
If history is anything to go by, river water disputes are almost impossible to resolve in our country. Each state has compelling reasons to not give a litre—whether it is Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh or Telangana. The issue of Krishna water distribution between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh is one such difficult case to resolve. It has been hanging fire since 2014 when the state of Telangana was carved out of the combined Andhra Pradesh. The Union Cabinet, after nine long years, has finally decided to refer the matter to the existing Brijesh Kumar tribunal to re-evaluate the share of each state.
It is indeed a victory of sorts for Telangana, as it has been the one demanding a fresh look at the matter. It has every reason to press for it. Under the Bachawat tribunal award, the then-combined Andhra Pradesh secured 811 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft) of assured Krishna water. Of this, project-wise, the Telangana region received 299 tmcft and Andhra 512 tmcft. The Brijesh Kumar tribunal, which was formed in 2004 under Section 3 of the Interstate River Water Disputes Act 1956, more or less upheld the Bachawat award in 2013. But then, the riparian states of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka challenged its verdict in the Supreme Court. It has been in limbo since then. After the formation of Telangana, naturally, the new state sought more than the 299 tmcft approved for it under the Bachawat award because the catchment area and population in the Krishna river basin are higher compared to those in Andhra. On the other hand, Andhra is dead against a relook as it has to divert water for the parched Rayalaseema region.
The Centre’s move has raised suspicions that it has done so in view of the fast-approaching Telangana elections. We hope that is not the case. One is yet to see the new terms of reference for the Brijesh Kumar tribunal. If it is not to drag the dispute for years, there must be a strict time-frame for the tribunal’s verdict. Both states must also understand that it is finally about the people and, hence, ought to empathise with each other’s compulsions. Otherwise, the dispute will remain forever like a festering wound with one refusing to accept the final award. An amicable solution that gives no reason for either party to move the court is needed. The history is not encouraging, but hope the future will be different.