The acrimony between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the latter's Hogenakkal drinking water-cum-fluorosis mitigation project may have temporarily been doused by putting on hold the work on the project till the elections in Karnataka in May, but the issue is far from dead and will continue to simmer. In fact, since it has now got linked to the elections, with a clear understanding that it will be taken up again after the formation of the new government in Karnataka, there is every reason for political parties to keep the issue on the boil. However, though the project involves utilisation of only a minor portion of the Cauvery waters, the controversy over the project has two mega-dimensions which make it difficult to resolve so soon. First, it is essentially an off-shoot of the far more contentious Cauvery waters-sharing dispute, which has defied solution since the pre-Independence period. Karnataka, which already feels done in because of the allocation of Cauvery waters, may fear further erosion of its water share due to this project. In fact, as has been reported somewhat belatedly, this project had got Karnataka's nod in 1998, chiefly as a trade-off for Tamil Nadu allowing the use of Cauvery waters for supplying to Bangalore city. But, by not going ahead with the implementation of the project till there was a new Parliament in place, Tamil Nadu made a tactical error that has boomeranged on it. Secondly, and this sets the issue apart from other river waters-sharing disputes, Hogenakkal is also enmeshed in the boundary dispute between the two states. Karnataka has been staking a claim over the scenic Hogenakkal waterfalls, which have tourism potential as well. | |
| Besides these complications, it needs to be borne in mind that Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have a history of discord when it comes to emotive issues like water. Rows over even minor issues tend to pose major law and order problems in both states, involving most often the attacks on cinema houses screening films in one another's language. Skirmishes between the police forces of the two states have also been witnessed in the past. |
| |
| Thus, the Hogenakkal controversy needs to be viewed in a much broader perspective. In one sense, it can be deemed as the price that has to be paid for not resolving inter-state water sharing and boundary disputes. In fact, but for the recent rains in the entire southern plateau, even the main Cauvery waters-sharing issue would have re-erupted by now, as happens every summers when the water requirement swells and availability dwindles. Therefore, unless the root cause of this, as also so many other protracted water disputes, is amicably settled, the recurrence of such disquieting episodes cannot be averted. For this, the historic mistake committed by the authors of the Constitution in making water a state subject will have to be rectified. It may seem difficult, as the states are unlikely to readily agree to give up their control over such a key resource as water, but this hurdle will have to be overcome. Otherwise, neither can equity be ensured in the distribution and utilisation of water, nor can recurrence of such disputes be prevented. What is worse, a part of the water will continue to flow wastefully to the sea. |
| |
|
| |
