Examine the nature of dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in context to sharing of the water of the river 'Kaveri'. Comment on the conflict resolution of such disputes.

The Cauvery River Water Disputes in India

The Cauvery River water disputes are among the longest-running inter-state river water disputes in India. In the past, agreements were signed between the disputing States, the tribunal delivered its verdict, and the Supreme Court of India made several interventions on the Cauvery issue. Yet, the disputes continue. On 16 February 2018, once again, the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict on the issue. However, this verdict has also not completely satisfied two of the four parties to the Cauvery disputes – Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

According to Benjamin (1971), the fundamental of the Cauvery disputes is linked with re-sharing of the waters which are being utilized fully. Karnataka (old Mysore) and Tamil Nadu (the old Madras Presidency) are the two parties that are being involved in this dispute. There were 26 that meetings took place at the Ministerial level between governments in 1968 and 1990 but none of the Consensus was reached. The constitution of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal was performed on June 2, 1990, under the ISWD Act, 1956

As reviewed by Hussain (2013) that there is a basic alteration between Tamil Nadu which is on one hand and there are Karnataka and Central governments on the other hand with their approach by sharing the Cauvery waters. It had been argued by the Tamil Nadu’s government that during the time of constructing the Kabini, Harangi, Suvarnavathi, and Hemavathi dams by Karnataka on the River Cauvery and elongating the irrigation works, Karnataka was minimizing their supply of the water in the Tamil Nadu region and thus hurt the existing and acquired ayacuts (Irrigation works) (Hussain, 2013). It had been stated by the Tamil Nadu government that Karnataka had not implemented the proper terms of the 1892 and 1924 Agreements which were linked with the usage, control, and distribution of the Cauvery waters. the Tamil Nadu government had asserted that the 1924 Agreements are permanent in nature and cannot be changed. However, the clause which had a deal with surplus water utilization for the extension of the irrigation in between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka which was contemplated in the 1924 Agreements had could be changed (Benjamin, 1971). In that contrast, Karnataka had questioned the 1924 agreements' validity. As per the government of Karnataka as reviewed in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (2007) that the Cauvery water issues could have been viewed from various angles which could emphasize the regional and equity balance to share the future arrangements. The political-economic dimensions of these disputes are apparent in the ways wherein the development of the water-related infrastructure has become one of the major weapons which continue to aggravate the tensions of politics over the Cauvery River (Iyer, 2009). Tamil Nadu had pursued the intervention of the central government to avoid Karnataka from building the dam as it can minimize the quantity of water. It is thus seen that the completion of the megaprojects transforms the rivers and makes it a landscape for conflicts over the waters (CWDT, 2007). Moreover, it also doesn’t address the river as a unitary and interconnected system. The water-related infrastructures had acted as the means of the political mobilization for economic development and growth but actually had provided distress as the government is not willing to release more water due to lower rainfall and higher demand for water among the local communities of both the states (Swain, 2008). However, after 17 years in 2007, the Cauvery water disputes tribunal gave its judgment stating that total availability of water in the river at 40 TMC in the normal years (Iyer, 2009). However, after 17 years in 2007, the Cauvery water disputes tribunal gave its judgment stating that total availability of water in the river at 40 TMC in the normal years (Iyer,2009). It allocated 7,641-million-meter cubes of water to Karnataka, 11,858-million meter cubes to Tamil Nadu, 849-million-meter cubes to Kerala, and 198-million-meter cube to Puducherry during normal rainfall years. Subsequently, this decision was challenged by the riparian state in the supreme court of India. Recently February 16, 2018, the supreme court gave the final judgment on this decade-long dispute on water distribution including a slight change in water allocation with a share of Karnataka increasing to 8.058-million-meter cube, the share of Tamil Nadu decreasing to 11.440 million cubic meters, and, the share of Kerala and Puducherry remaining the same. The court made it clear that the final water award should stand unchanged for the next 15 years (Schmidt,2018)

Comment on the conflict resolution of such disputes:-

Cauvery River is termed as a lifeline for plenty of people residing in both of the states. Thus, the favorable reallocation of the water is required as per the need and requirements of each state. This could be the initial step for the resolution of the issues. The next approach to settling disputes could be the improvement of the guideline of the national water policy which directs and manage the water sharing of the interstate rivers. There is a need to fulfill the national agreements on the sharing principles which help in the application and creation of the newer policy and guideline of the water. 

It is reviewed that each of the states has taken its own stand and rights to ruminate its rights. Karnataka government has asserted unqualified rights to make the usage of the Cauvery water for the advantage of its farmers and on the other hand, Tamil Nadu has insisted on its rights to achieve the water and regarding the durability of the 1924 agreements. However, it is important to get away from the untenable proposition and make effective realization to both the states. 

It is recommended that the Tamil Nadu government must make to realize that the historic flow of water cannot be restored and cannot hold for the upstream development. Tamil Nadu government must learn to sustain with the lesser flow of water which can be done by the management of the water, avoidance of the waste materials, conservation of the rainwater, conjunctive usage of the surface water, and also changes in the pattern of the crops. It is also recommended that the Karnataka government should make to realize that Tamil Nadu is a riparian and possess equal right to share the water of the common river. Karnataka government should analyze that they are not asking for charity but they have full authority to gain an equal share of the water. The Karnataka government must understand that Tamil Nadu also possesses long-established irrigation agriculture and not sharing water might disturb the life of the people living nearby the river shore. It is also recommended that both the states should sort out any of the issues by the means of negotiations and a give-and-take policy should be involved in this case. 

Furthermore, it is analyzed that national intervention would be important to protect the security of the farmers of both states. Since sharing of the water is considered a national issue as it can happen with any of the states which share the water so it is recommended that the Indian government should provide an effective response to the supply and distribution of the water for all of the rivers which fall within the Indian National Jurisdictions. They should formulate some rules and regulations to avoid any sorts of issues which could result in the crisis of water. It is reviewed that political parties are adding fuel to these issues for their own benefits and the government of each state is also acting as a major barrier for the prevention of the issues. It is thus recommended that the idea of equity should be added in the mind of governmental and political parties and should be made to sacrifice some benefits to maintain laws and orders. It is suggested that both the states must make a fresh meeting and compromise the issues and disputes on some level which is acceptable by both the states. 

Taking the dispute of dams into consideration in the Cauvery disputes, it can be recommended that both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka states should be permitted to build several dams wherever possible. Tamil Nadu should be given permission to build its dam projects at Hogenakkal and Karnataka should be permitted to build its dam projects across Mekedatu. It is seen that politics is being played in both states but there must be a mutual relationship between the two states. Effective conservation of the lake water and rainwater could also be an effective means to store and conserve a large amount of water in both the states which could be used at the time of drought and severe summer days.