Half-measures won't do

The Cabinet decision to nationalise parts of 14 rivers for expediting the use of their waters for irrigation and power, with Central funding, is illogical though the objective is clear and justified. The partial nationalisation will create an odd, as also confusing, situation where the Centre takes over the implementation of development projects on parts of the rivers by declaring them as national projects, while the states will retain overall control over river waters as stipulated in the Constitution. There has to be some doubt about the workability of such an arrangement.

It is of course true that the states have not been able to optimally harness the river waters belonging to them and, under the circumstances, Central intervention may be imperative. But merely taking over a few projects on selected rivers is unlikely to make much of a difference, unless the hurdles that have been impeding the economic exploitation of river waters ""such as the issues concerning land acquisition, compensation and rehabilitation, and inter-state disputes leading to litigation and adjudication by tribunals "" are properly addressed. The Centre's move can, at best, help make some headway in better harnessing the Indian share of water in the rivers that are governed by international treaties and which, it should be noted, have been included in the list of rivers chosen for this purpose. The fact is that Central intervention is required even more in the umpteen multi-purpose river valley projects that remain in limbo for inordinate periods of time because of inter-state disputes and because of lack of funds. Surprisingly, such projects have been kept out of the purview of the partial nationalisation.

The ills of the water sector can be traced to the provision in the Constitution which makes water a state subject. There is also no umbrella framework to regulate water in all its dimensions so as to facilitate the tapping of the full economic value of this natural resource. At present, several laws, rules, treaties and tribunal awards, some of which have overlapping provisions, apply simultaneously to this resource, creating a confusing jumble and giving rise to innumerable rows, causing the stalling of development projects. The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-state relations, which examined the Constitutional provisions concerning water, somehow chose to leave the subject vague. However, the Commission did at one stage point out that there was need for Central control over the waters of inter-state rivers and river valleys for their regulation and control. But, in the end, the Commission displayed its helplessness and opted to concede that the existing Constitutional arrangements seem the best possible method of distributing power between the Union and the states with respect to a complex and sensitive subject like water.

Matters should not be left there. Despite the sensitiveness of the issue and political banana peel that it represents, the fact is that the nationalisation of all the water resources of the country is perhaps the only way to ensure that water is viewed as an economic good and distributed fairly according to the genuine needs of different states and sectors. This would require amendment of the Constitution and its endorsement by the requisite number of states. Prima facie, this gives the appearance of being a Gordian knot. But that is no reason for giving up pursuing the only rational solution that suggests itself.