Return of the Cauvery crisis
READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED: D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.
MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC
With the Southwest monsoon falling short this season, the story of any other monsoon-deficient year is being repeated: Tamil Nadu rushing to the Supreme Court citing (an official notice given to a person to appear) the crisis faced by its farmers, the court ordering release of some water, and protests erupting (to eject something violently) in Karnataka. The reason for this endless cycle of sporadic litigation (the conduct of lawsuit) and ad hoc (for a particular purpose) adjudication (a judgement or sentence) is that the two States continue to avoid any mutual engagement to share the shortfall during distress years. And there is no permanent, independent mechanism to ensure this.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (a court of law) , which gave its award in 2007, has asked the parties to share the deficiency on a pro rata (in proportion to some factor that can be exactly calculated) basis. However, a major problem in implementing this aspect is the absence of a ‘Cauvery Management Board’ and a Regulatory Authority, which the Tribunal had wanted created to oversee implementation. Instead, after notifying the final award in 2013, the Union government set up a Supervisory Committee comprising officials from the Union government and the Central Water Commission and representatives of both States. The court has now asked Tamil Nadu to approach the committee, which will decide on further releases.
The Supreme Court’s direction, when implemented, will ensure about 13 thousand million cubic (tmc) feet of water to Tamil Nadu over 10 days. This will not be adequate to save the entire samba crop, Tamil Nadu leaders argue, while their Karnataka counterparts contend that this itself is a huge burden (a heavy load) , given the State’s own storage deficit (deficiency in amount or quality) . It is understandable that the political leadership of any State would not want to be seen as betraying (to prove faithless) the interests of its farmers. Yet, the desire to protect one’s own interests should not shut out empathy for one’s neighbour. Ideally, any distress-sharing formula should come from a technical body.
It would have helped if the Centre, which dilly-dallied (to waste time ; to delay taking action) for six years before notifying the final award under a judicial direction, had set up the Cauvery Management Board and Regulatory Authority. In the longer term, experts will have to devise a sustainable agricultural solution for the Cauvery basin, as the river does not seem to have the potential to meet the farming requirements of both sides. In a world of depleting water resources, fewer crop seasons and lower acreages, a resort to less water-intensive crops and better water management hold the key. Non-political initiatives, such as the ‘Cauvery Family’, a body formed a few years ago covering farmers of both States, could help disperse (to scatter in different direction) the clouds of hostility that gather over the border whenever the Cauvery crisis erupts. Politics and passion should not be allowed to hold sway.
