Cauvery row: Centre’s stand is questionable

Political expediency is the Centre’s sole reason to go back to the Supreme Court seeking clarifications on the formation of a Cauvery Management Board or a panel to oversee the sharing of Cauvery waters. One reason cited was the fear of law and order problems in Karnataka and the vitiation of the poll process if any announcement was made complying with the six-week deadline the court had set, which expired on March 29. Further, the Centre stirred the bogey of federalism versus state autonomy in seeking a clarification on whether a CMB should be formed or a more flexible panel set up that would presumably follow a less rigid line on managing the flow of waters from Karnataka to the lower riparian states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry. It may take several rounds of legal wrangling if the fundamental question of India’s federal and state structure were to be addressed.

The simple reason why the Centre is reluctant to follow the Supreme Court’s final order is that it has a stake in Karnataka, where it hopes to regain power in the May Assembly election. The BJP has no chance in the near future to gain power in Tamil Nadu, the major state affected by the Cauvery award, or even Kerala or Puducherry. This belated referral back to the court after the deadline expired is so slanted that it betrays the intentions of the federal player in a long-running dispute. As long as monthly releases of water don’t take place as per the last revised sharing formula, the Supreme Court’s orders have no meaning. As the main beneficiary, Karnataka can just sit on whatever water resources have been saved in its reservoirs.

As the party with a federal agenda that is bigger than any other, the BJP’s stand in raising the question of state autonomy in this matter is puzzling. This may be mere legal posturing to buy time past the Karnataka elections, but it may also set a dangerous precedent in aiding non-compliance of court orders by states. Tamil Nadu had no recourse but to file a contempt petition even if it is unlikely that the court will view it that way in the interim while it considers other implications like law and order in governance. There again, the catch is any upper riparian state can claim that law and order issues would arise if water is shared. That is how precious water resources have become, against a backdrop of sustaining farming operations through river water irrigation and a rising population with drinking water needs. The current situation following the final verdict in a dispute that dates back to the end of the 19th century does not engender optimism that the issue will ever be resolved satisfactorily. Such a failure would be reflect on the nation.