 "A vehicle from Tamil Nadu in flames after it was torched by pro-Kannada activists during a protest over Cauvery water row, in Bengaluru")
Bengaluru came to a halt on Monday, the second time in a week, after protesters targeted property and vehicles of Tamil speaking people over the Cauvery river water dispute. One person was killed and another injured in police firing in the city.
The protests and violence began after the September 5 Supreme Court order to release 15,000 cusec of Cauvery river water to Tamil Nadu for a period of ten days.
Subsequently, the apex court on Monday modified its September 5 order, asking Karnataka to release a reduced amount of 12,000 cusecs of Cauvery River water per day to Tamil Nadu till September 20. The amount was reduced in response to an urgent plea by Karnataka.
When did the dispute start?
The dispute over sharing the river's water goes back to the British era, when the erstwhile Madras Presidency and the then Mysore state (Karnataka) signed an agreement on the sharing of the river's waters in 1924.
The agreement was to be valid for 50 years and then it would be subject to a review.
However, after Independence, both states expressed their objections to the British-era agreement and the issue was taken up over several rounds of talks. With land under irrigation increasing in both states, they vied to claim a larger share of the river's water.
A Rediff report from 2007, which detailed the specifics of the 1924 agreement, says that under the original agreement, Mysore (present day Karnataka) had been permitted to construct a dam in Kannambadi village to impound 44.8 thousand million cubic feet (tmc ft) of the river's water. According to the report, 12 years after independence, Karnataka approached Tamil Nadu and invited its attention to several clauses under the original agreement and suggested changes. Tamil Nadu, for its part, turned down Karnataka's request and said that any changes would only be considered after the expiry of the original agreement in 1974. Madras, for its part, got the right to construct a dam in Mettur in Selam district to impound 93.5 tmc ft.
Both states would continue to negotiate without any final settlement. After years of stalemate, a three-man tribunal was constituted in 1990 after the Supreme Court directed the then VP Singh-led government to constitute a tribunal for all the concerned disputes. Karnataka claimed 465 tmc ft as its share before the tribunal, while Tamil Nadu demanded that the waters should be shared according to the original agreement. According to Tamil Nadu's demand, it was entitled to 566 tmc ft along with Puducherry, while Karnataka was entitled to 177 tmc ft and Kerala to only 5 tmc ft. In their separate presentations in front of the tribunal, Kerala demanded 99.8 tmc ft and Puducherry 9.3 tmc ft.
In its June 1991 interim order, the tribunal awarded 205 tmc of water to Tamil Nadu, which Karnataka would have to release annually. Further, the award also set down the weekly and monthly flows which were to be ensured by Karnataka for every month of the annual period. The award was upheld despite Karnataka's protests. Violence broke out as a result of the award in the state.
Why does the dispute continue?
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal would announce its final verdict only in 2007, 16 years after the interim verdict in favour of Tamil Nadu and the resultant violence.
An article from The Wire explains the verdict.
According to the article, after years of calculations and legal arguments, the tribunal said that given 50 per cent dependability of the monsoon, 750 tmc ft of the river's water would be available annually. From there, the article adds that the tribunal decided how best to distribute the available water between the four states. The final order awarded 419 tmc ft to Tamil Nadu, 270 tmc ft to Karnataka, 30 tmc ft to Kerala, and 7 tmc ft to Pondicherry. An extra 14 tmc ft was set aside for environmental purposes.
Further, the report said that the final award directed the upper riparian state of Karnataka to ensure that 192 tmc ft was given to Tamil Nadu annually, additionally, it fixed a monthly quota.
The article argues that the confusion created in the wake of the verdict and its misinterpretation has played a part in the continuing bad blood between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The award was widely held to have given Tamil Nadu 419 tmc ft even when the interim reward was only decided to be 205 tmc.
According to the article, the verdict ensures that while Karnataka contributes 462 tmc ft of the river's waters, it can only use 270 tmc ft. On the other hand, Tamil Nadu, which contributes 227 tmc ft, gets 419 tmc ft.
However, the article says that historical reasons are to blame behind this seeming unfairness and not the Supreme Court verdict.
Going back in history, rulers like the Cholas who ruled the region which is today Tamil Nadu had built reservoirs and check dams as far back as the 10th century for agricultural purposes. The rulers of Mysore would build there first reservoir only in 1934. The result, the article points out, is that the farmers of Tamil Nadu had a leg up when the 1894 and 1924 agreements were entered into. Back in 1924, what is today Karnataka was only claiming 6.5 lakh acres of land under irrigation, compared to 15 to 20 lakh acres for Tamil Nadu. Even now, Karnataka only has 15 lakh acres under irrigation. Even upto 1974, when the 1924 agreement was terminated, nearly 80 per cent of the annual yield from Cauvery was used by farmers in Tamil Nadu.
All these factors gave Tamil Nadu the upper hand and so the state enjoys the greater share.
However, the report points out that under the 1924 agreement, Tamil Nadu’s share was 80 per cent and Karnataka's was just 16 per cent. After the final verdict, Tamil Nadu's share has come down to 57 per cent and Karnataka's has gone up to 37 per cent.
