There has been a flare up of Cauvery waters dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu consequent to the Supreme Court order on release of waters to Tamil Nadu. There have been violent protests in Karnataka. What is the CPI (M) stand on the issue?
M Durairaj, Chennai

THE Cauvery water sharing issue is a very complex one involving at least four states – Karnataka, Kerala, Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu – and has a long history. Neither an absolute insistence on the rights of the upper riparian state (Karnataka) nor an insistence on historically enjoyed allocations of the lower riparian state (Tamil Nadu) will help solve the issue. The approaches of the parties to the dispute have seen many twists and turns over the long period of the dispute. A Cauvery Waters Disputes Tribunal was constituted in the course of the dispute and its 2007 judgment was notified as an Award by government notification as per a Supreme Court directive in 2013. This is legally binding on all parties concerned. However, disputes arise when there is poor rainfall and lower levels of water in the reservoirs.

The experience so far suggests that the sharing of Cauvery waters becomes an issue of serious conflict only in years of poor rainfall and overall shortage of water available to meet the needs of all the states concerned. Though technically Kerala as an upper riparian state and Pondicherry as the lower-most riparian state are also parties to the dispute and have their own claims and commitments with regard to water sharing, the principal partners to the dispute are Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Leaving aside the years of adequate rainfall and water availability, the crux of the issue becomes one of finding an equitable sharing arrangement during distress years. While the tribunal award provides some broad guidelines for water sharing in distress years, the final sharing (or a sharing formula with built-in flexibility) in such years has to be based on a negotiated settlement between the principal states concerned.
The present conflict arose in such a time of inadequate rainfall in the catchment areas. The Supreme Court gave an order to Karnataka to release 15,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu till September 15. The Karnataka, though unhappy, complied with the order. Subsequently, on an appeal by the Karnataka government, the Court reduced the quantum to 12,000 cusecs daily but extended the period of supply by five days. This led to violent attacks and arson of buses and vehicles from Tamil Nadu in Bengaluru and other places. There is no question that Court orders have to be implemented. But for a lasting solution, the governments of the two states should be able to talk and arrive at an agreement which protects the interests of the farmers and peoples of the two states. The role of the central government should be to assist this process.

Unfortunately, bourgeois parties do not in general view the issue from the perspective of uniting the people of both states and arriving at an equitable solution. As a working class party, the CPI(M) is of the view that all parties to the Cauvery water sharing issue should (a) abide by the constitutional processes for resolving such issues and (b) arrive at a lasting and equitable settlement through mutual negotiations. Inflaming passions on all sides with a short-sighted view of scoring short term political gains, as several political and other forces have been doing will only divide working people and prevent a lasting solution. This is inimical to the interests of the country, the states concerned and working people.