Kaveri River water dispute Essay

Kaveri river flows in South Karnataka and thusly to Tamil Nadu. The communion of wet of the river Kaveri has been the source of a serious conflict mingled with the Indian put forwards of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The genesis of this conflict, rests in 2 contr everyplacesial par entirelyelismsone subscribe in 1892 and a nonher in 1924between the erst temporary hookup Madras brass and Princely carry of Mysore. The 802 km Kaveri river 1 has 32,000 sq km body of irrigate parting sports stadium in Karnataka and 44,000 sq km basin scene of action in Tamil Nadu. The evoke of Karnataka contends that it does not receive its due consider of water from the river as does Tamil Nadu. Karnataka claims that these pacts were skewed heavily in favour of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on equitable sharing of the waters.Tamil Nadu, on the opposite accomplish, pleads that it has already developed well-nigh 3,000,000 land (12,000 km2) of lan d and as a result has incur to face very heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any modification in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millions of sodbusters in the state. Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit. The presidency of India hence constituted a motor lodge in 1990 to look into the thing.After hearing arguments of all the parties involved for the nigh 16 course of studys, the judicial system delivered its concluding verdict on 5 February 2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 zillion ft (12 km) of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 one thousand million ft (7.6 km) to Karnataka 30 billion ft (0.8 km) of Kaveri river water to Kerala and 7 billion ft (0.2 km) to Pondicherry. The brawl however, appears not to have concluded, as all iv states deciding to file critical review prayers see pansy clarifications and possible renegotiation of the format.History of the disputeThe British agreeled two Mys ore and Madras for a short period in the middle of the nineteenth century. During their regime, numerous plans were drawn up for the utilization of the Kaveri waters by both states. However, the drought and ulterior famine in the mid 1870s put a hold on the implementation of these plans. The plans were revived by Mysore in 1881, by which time Mysore was hazard in the hands of the Mysore kings, magic spell present day Tamil Nadu continue to remain a part of the Madras Presidency. Mysores plans to revive the irrigation projects met with resistance from the Madras Presidency. Mysore state made a representation to the then British establishment as a result of which, a conference was held in 1890 with the objective of agreeing on the principles of a modus vivendi, which would on the one hand allow to Mysore reasonable granting immunity in dealing with her irrigation works, and on the other, give to Madras practical security against hurt to her interests and eventually the Agreement of 1892 was house-language(a). Karnataka deems this agreement as having been between unequal partners because, while Mysore state was a princely state, Madras formed a part of the British Raj.Karnataka as well considers this agreement to have been severely inimical to its interests as it gave brush military groups and prescriptive rights to Madras, the lower riparian state. As per this agreement, Mysore was required to obtain Madras go for for any refreshed irrigation reservoirs across any of the main rivers it wished to engage and package information on any new irrigation scheme it wished to down the stairstake to utilize the waters Things came to a head in 1910 when Mysore, on a lower floor Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar as the king and Sir. M.Visvesvaraya as Chief Engineer came up with a plan to nominate a jam at Kannambadi village to hold up to 41.5 TMC of water. The obstruct was planned to be built in two stages. In the early stage a capacity of 11 TMC was envision ed, while in the gage stage the full capacity was set to be enlightend.Madras however, refused to give its react for this move as it had its own plans to build a storage block at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC. After a germ to the G everywherenment of India, consent was accorded to Mysore, notwithstanding for a reduced storage of 11TMC. During construction, however, the mental hospital was laid to suit the in front desired full storage. This raised Madras dander and the dispute keep. As a result, the then British Government of India referred the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892 Agreement. The Cauvery dispute frankincense had come up for arbitration for the first time. Sir H D Griffin was decreed arbitrator and M. Nethersole, the Inspector General of Irrigation in India, was made the Assessor. They entered into proceedings on 16 July 1913 and the Award was given on 12 May 1914.The prize upheld the earlier conclusiveness of the Government of India and al lowed Mysore to go ahead with the construction of the dam up to 11 TMC. The agreement also stipulated that Mysore was not to increase its area under irrigation more than 110,000 acres (450 km2) beyond what was already existing, while the same(p) cap for Madras Presidency was pegged at 301000acrekm2. Nonetheless, Madras shut up appealed against the gift and negotiations go on. Eventually an agreement was arrived at in 1924 and a duette of minor agreements were also signed in 1929 and 1933. The 1924 agreement was set to lapse after(prenominal) a barrage of 50 years. As a result of these agreements, Karnataka claims that Mysore was forced to give up rights.Post independence developmentsIn 1947, India won independence from the British. This changed the equations drastically. Tamil Nadu was carve out of Madras Presidency and Mysore province became a state. Further in 1956, the reorganization of the states of India took place and state boundaries were redrawn based on linguistic d emographics. Kodagu or Coorg (the place of origin of the Kaveri), became a part of Mysore state. Huge parts of erstwhile Hyderabad state and Bombay Presidency conjugated with Mysore state. Parts of Malabar which earlier formed part of Madras Presidency went to Kerala. Pondicherry had already become a de facto Union territory in 1954.All these changes win changed the equations as Kerala and Pondicherry also jumped into the kerfuffle. Kerala staked its claim as one of the major tributaries of the Kaveri, the Kabini, without delay originated in Kerala. Karaikal region of Pondicherry at the tail end of the river demanded the waters that it had forever used for drinking and some minimal agriculture. plot of ground these additional claims heterogeneous matters greatly at a technical level, Mysore state and Tamil Nadu still remained the major parties to the dispute. By the late 1960s, both states and the Central politics began to realize the gravity of the situation as the 50 year run of the 1924 agreement was in short coming to an end. Negotiations were started in right earnest and discussions continued for roughly 10 years1970 s magical spell discussions continued, a Cauvery Fact purpose Committee (CFFC) was constituted. The brief of the CFFC was to inspect the ground realities and come up with a report. The CFFC came up with a preliminary report in 1972 and a final report in 1973. Inter state discussions were held based on this report. in the end in 1974, a draft agreement which also provided for the creation of a Cauvery Valley indorsement was prepared by the Ministry of Irrigation. This draft however, was not ratified. While all these discussions went on, Tamil Nadus irrigated lands had grown from a pre-Mettur command area of 1,440,000 acres (5,800 km2) to 2,580,000 acres (10,400 km2) 7 while Karnatakas irrigated area stood at 680,000 acres (2,800 km). Karnataka maintains that these figures demonstrate the lop-sided nature of the agreement.7In 1976, after a serial of discussions between the two states and the Central regime chaired by Jagjeevan Ram, the then Irrigation attend, a final draft was prepared based on findings of the CFFC. This draft was authorized by all states and the Government also made an announcement to that prepare in Parliament. Tamil Nadu came under Presidents observe soon after that and the agreement was put on the linchpinburner. When Presidents rule was lifted, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) with M. G. Ramachandran at the helm came to power for the first time in Tamil Nadu and the dispute took a new turn. The Tamil Nadu government at present rejected the draft agreement and started insisting that the 1924 agreement had that provided for an reference work and not a review.It began insisting that status quo be restored and everyone go O.K. to the agreements of 1892 and 1924. This however, did not cut ice with Karnataka which had throughout maintained that those agreements were partisan and had been signed between unequal partners. When Karnataka began construction of the Harangi dam at Kushalanagara in Kodagu, it was in one case again met with resistance from Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu went to tribunal demanding the constitution of a Tribunal under the Inter State Water Disputes Act (ISWD) of 1956. It also demanded the immediate stoppage of construction work at the dam site. As a result of Tamil Nadus protests, Karnataka had to fund the construction under the non-plan head and this led to a severe strain on its finances.8eightiesLater Tamil Nadu withdrew its case demanding the constitution of a tribunal and the two states started negotiating again. Several rounds of discussions were held in the 1980s. The result was still, a stalemate. In 1986, a farmers association from Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu moved the unequivocal courtyard demanding the constitution of a tribunal. While this case was still pending, the two states continued some rounds of talks. Thi s continued till April 1990 and yet yielded no results.The constitution of the tribunalThe Supreme cost then direct the government headed by acme Minister V. P. Singh to constitute a tribunal and refer all disputes to it. A three man tribunal was thus constituted on 2 June 1990. The tribunal was headquartered at New Delhi and was to be headed by Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee.39 The four states presented their demands to the tribunal as under * Karnataka claimed 465 billion ft (13 km) as its share * Kerala wants 99.8 billion ft (2.83 km) as its share * Pondicherry claims 9.3 billion ft (0.3 km)* Tamil Nadu wants the flows to be check offd in accordance with the name of the agreements of 1892 and 1924 (ie., 566 billion ft (16 km) for Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry 177 billion ft (5 km) for Karnataka and 5 billion ft (0.1 km) for Kerala). editInterim award and the riotsSoon after the tribunal was set up, Tamil Nadu demanded a mandatory injunction on Karnataka for the immediate thaw of water and other reliefs. This was dismissed by the tribunal. Tamil Nadu at once went back to the Supreme Court which direct the tribunal to view Tamil Nadus plea. The tribunal reconsidered Tamil Nadus plea and gave an meanwhile award on 25 June 1991. In coming up with this award, the tribunal calculated the norm inflows into Tamil Nadu over a period of 10 years between 198081 and 198990. The extreme years were ignored for this calculation. The average worked out to 205 billion ft (5.8 km) which Karnataka had to ensure reached Tamil Nadu in a water year. The award also stipulated the weekly and monthly flows to be ensured by Karnataka for each month of the water year.The tribunal further directed Karnataka not to increase its irrigated land area from the existing 1,120,000 acres (4,500 km2) Karnataka deemed this passing inimical to its interests and issued an ordinance quest to annul the tribunals award. The Supreme Court now stepped in at the Presidents cause and struck d own the Ordinance issued by Karnataka. It upheld the tribunals award which was subsequently gazetted by the Government of India on 11 December 1991. Karnataka was thus forced to accept the lag award and widespread demonstrations and violence broke out in parts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu following this. Thousands of Tamil families had to vanish from Bangalore in fear of being attacked and lynched by pro-Kannada activists. The violence and show down, in the main centered in the Tamil populated parts of Bangalore, lasted for nearly a month and most schools and educational institutions in Bangalore remained closed during this period.The crisis of 19951996In 1995, the monsoons failed gravely in Karnataka and Karnataka found itself hard press to fulfill the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate rick of at least 30 billion ft. The Supreme Court refused to entertain Tamil Nadus supplicate and asked it to approach the tribunal. The tribunal ex amined the case and recommended that Karnataka vent-hole 11 billion ft. Karnataka pleaded that 11 billion ft was unimplementable in the circumstances that existed then. Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court demanding that Karnataka be forced to heed the tribunals order. The Supreme Court this time recommended that the then immemorial Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao intervene and find a political solution. The indigenous Minister convened a brush with the Chief Ministers of the two states and recommended that Karnataka release 6 billion ft instead of the 11 billion ft that the tribunal legitimate. Karnataka complied with the decision of the Prime Minister and the issue blew over.Constitution of the CRAKarnataka had all through maintained that the interim award was not scientific and was inherently flawed. It had, nevertheless, complied with the order except during 199596 when rains failed. What complicated matters was that the Interim award was ambiguous on distress s haring and there was no clear cut formula that everyone agreed upon to share the waters in the case of failure of the monsoon. In 1997, the Government proposed the move up of a Cauvery River Authority which would be vested with far reaching powers to ensure the implementation of the Interim Order. These powers included the power to take over the control of dams in the event of the Interim Order not being honoured. Karnataka, which had evermore maintained that the interim order had no scientific basis and was as such flawed, strongly protested the proposal to set up such an authority.The Government then made several modifications to the powers of the Authority and came up with a new proposal. The new proposal greatly reduced the executive powers of the Authority. The power to take over control of dams was also done away with. Under this new proposal, the Government set up two new bodies, viz., Cauvery River Authority and Cauvery Monitoring Committee. The Cauvery River Authority wou ld consist of the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of all four states(Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Kerala) and was headquartered in New Delhi. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee on the other hand, was an skillful body which consisted of engineers, technocrats and other officers who would take stock of the ground realities and report to the government .The sheen up and high drama of 2002In the summer of 2002, things at a time again came to a head as the monsoon failed in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Reservoirs in both states fell to record low levels and inevitably tempers rose. The glutinous point yet again, as in 199596 was how the distress would be shared between the two states. The tribunal had overlooked this crucial point10 when it gave the interim award and it had re move once again to haunt the situation. Tamil Nadu demanded that Karnataka honour the interim award and release to Tamil Nadu its proportionate share. Karnataka on the other hand stated that the w ater levels were hardly enough to meet its own demands and control out releasing any water in the circumstances that prevailed.11CRA meeting and the Supreme Court orderA meeting of the CRA was called on 27 August but the Karnataka chief rector walked out of the meeting. The focus now shifted to the Supreme Court which ordered Karnataka to release 1.25 billion ft of water every day unless CRA revised it. Karnataka started the release of water but pressed for another(prenominal) meeting of the CRA which was fixed for 8 September. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister this time boycotted the meet citing insufficient notice as the reason. A see from her cabinet, however represented Tamil Nadu. The CRA revised the Courts order from 1.25 billion ft to 0.8 billion ft per day. This time however, the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the CRA, refused to release any water succumbing to the bad scale protests that had mounted in the Kaveri districts of the state.Tamil Nadu agha st at the defiance, went back to the Supreme Court. Karnataka now resumed the release of water for a few days, but halt it again on 18 September as a protesting farmer committed suicide by jumping into the reservoir and the protests menace to take a dangerous turn. The centre now stepped in and asked Karnataka to release the water. The SC meanwhile, in response to Tamil Nadus petition asked the CRA for flesh out of the water release and water levels in the reservoirs. The CRA in turn ordered for the inspections of the reservoirs. While the CRA inspected the reservoirs in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu (on 23 September) flatly refused to grant them permission to inspect its reservoirs. This move by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, coupled with her earlier walkout and boycott of the CRA meets, came in for severe criticism from all quarters. On 30 September the Supreme court ordered Tamil Nadu to co-operate with the CRA and Tamil Nadu gave inDemonstrationsThe flare up had by now, well and truly ta ken an pathetic turn and there were accusations and counter accusations being thrown all round in both states. The opposition parties in Tamil Nadu too had jumped into the fray and at the same time joining Jayalalitha in stinging rebukes of both the Centre and the CRA, while the opposition parties in Karnataka expressed their full solidarity with the Congress-led Karnataka government to protect their right to the Kaveri water. To add to all this, the dispute had already spilled onto the streets in the district of Mandya in Karnataka and was threatening to spread to other parts of the state too. Precipitating the matters on the streets, the SC ordered Karnataka on 3 October to travel along with the CRA and resume the release of water. Karnataka once again refused to obey the orders of SC. Tamil Nadu slapped another contempt petition on Karnataka and soon the issue degenerated into a escaped for all with all and sundry from both states joining the protests.Soon, film actors and c onglomerate other cross sections of society from both states were on the streets. Tamil TV channels and screening of Tamil films were blocked in Karnataka. Also all buses and vehicles from Tamil Nadu were barred from entering Karnataka. The belligerence soon hit a crescendo with Tamil activists calling for a stoppage of power from the Neyveli force-out station to Karnataka as a tit-for-tat measure. A Pan-Tamil militant outfit (a month or so later) went ahead and blasted a major power transformer supplying power to the neighbouring states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.12 The Karnataka Chief Minister, Mr. S. M. Krishna on the other hand, fearing that the situation susceptibility spiral out of control, embarked on a padayatra from Bangalore to Mandya. While some proverb this as merely a gimmick, some, like U R Ananthamurthy adage it as a good faith effort to soothe tempers and joined him in the yatra.20032006This period did not see any major flare up in the dispute even though the summer of 2003 byword a dry spell in both states. The monsoons in 2004, 2005 and 2006 was preferably copious and this helped a great deal in keeping the tempers calm. While the last 3 or 4 years have been comparatively quiet as far as jingoistic voices are concerned, a flurry of development has been afoot in the courts. The term of the tribunal was ab initio set to expire in August 2005. However, in the light of the many arguments the court was yet to hear, the tribunal filed a request for university extension of its term. The extension was granted and the tribunals term was extend for another year until September 2006. Early in 2006, a major controversy erupted over the Assessors report that was apparently leaked to the press. The report had suggested a decision which Karnataka summarily rejected. Another major controversy erupted when just a couple of months before the September 2006 deadline, the tribunal recommended the formation of another expert committal to study the g round realities yet again.This was unanimously and vehemently contend by all the four states party to the dispute. The states contended that this move would further delay a judgment which has already been 16 years in the making. More than the check of all the four states of the new expert committee that was proposed, the proposal turned out to be a major embarrassment for the tribunal. This was because, not only were the four states opposed to it, even the Chief Judge of the tribunal was opposed to it.However the other two assistant adjudicate on 3-man adjudication team, over rule the picture of the main Judge. And all this was done in a packed royal court and this led to petty bickering and heated arguments between the three judges in the packed courtroom. This left everyone in the courtroom shocked and the Tamil Nadu counsel was moved to remark that it was embarrassing that the judges probably essential help settling their own disputes before adjudicating on the dispute at h and. Nonetheless, the new expert committee was formed and carried out further assessments. Subsequently, the extended deadline of the tribunal also passed and the tribunal was given yet another extension. judiciousnessThe Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007. According to its verdict,13 Tamil Nadu bonds 419 billion ft (12 km) of Cauvery water while Karnataka gets 270 billion ft (7.6 km). The actual release of water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu is to be 192 billion ft (5.4 km) annually. Further, Kerala will get 30 billion ft and Pondicherry 7 billion ft. Tamil Nadu appears to have been accepting the verdictcitation needed while the government of Karnataka, unhappy with the decision, filed a modification petition before the tribunal want a reviewcitation needed.2012On 19th Sep 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh , who is also the Chairman of Cauvery River Authority (CRA), directed Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water to Tamil Na du at Biligundlu (the border) daily from September 21 t-19 But Karnataka felt that this was impractical due to the drought conditions prevailing because of the failed monsoon. Karnataka then walked out of the high level meeting as a sign of protest. On Sep 21, 2012, Karnataka filed a petition before the Cauvery River Authority seeking review of its September 19 ruling. On Sep 24 ,2012, Tamil Nadu Chief minister directed the officials to immediately file a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to Karnataka to release Tamil Nadu its due share of water.14 On Sep 28, 2012, the Supreme Court slammed the Karnataka government for failing to comply with the directive of the CRA. 15 Left with no other option, Karnataka started releasing water.This led to wide protests and violence in Karnataka. 16 On Oct 4, 2012, the Karnataka government filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on its September 28 order order it to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water eve ryday to Tamil Nadu, until October 15. 17 On Oct 6, 2012, Several Kannada organisations, under the banner of Kannada Okkoota, called a Karnataka bandh (close down) on October 6 in protest against the Cauveri water release. 18 On Oct 8, 2012, Supreme Court of India has announced the release of 9000 cusecs has to be continued and its upto the CRA head, the Prime Minister is the responsible person. On Oct 8, 2012, the Prime Minister ruled out a review of the Cauvery River Authoritys (CRA) decision ask Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu till October 20, rejecting the plea by both the Congress and BJP leaders from Karnataka.Within a few hours from this, Karnataka stopped release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu 19 On Oct 9, 2012, Tamil Nadu chief minister directed authorities to immediately file a contempt petition against the Karnataka government for flouting the verdict of the Supreme Court by unilaterally halt the release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu.20 O n Oct 17, 2012, Tamil Nadu made a fresh plea in the Supreme Court reiterating its demand for publication appropriate directions to Karnataka to make good the shortfall of 48 tmcft of water as per the distress sharing formula.21On Nov 15, 2012, The Cauvery Monitoring Committee, directed the Karnataka government to release 4.81 tmcft to Tamil Nadu between November 16 and 30, 2012 22 On Dec 6, 2012, The supreme court directed Karnataka to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu. SC has asked centre to forecast the time frame within which the final decision of cauvery water dispute tribunal(which was given in feb 2007) will be notified. This decision was given in the view of saving the standing crops of both the states. 23