KARNATAKA Chief Minister S.M. Krishna's decision on September 19 to suspend the release of 0.8 tmc ft of water a day to Tamil Nadu, the quantum decided by the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) at its meeting on September 8, has put the Cauvery dispute on what appears to be an intractable and potentially dangerous course. The decision was taken at an emergency Cabinet meeting convened in Bangalore following the death by drowning of a farmer in the Kabini reservoir. K. Guruswamy, a small landowner and member of the Beechanahalli gram panchayat, jumped into the reservoir with four others as a mark of protest against the release of water to Tamil Nadu. While the three others swam to safety, Guruswamy drowned. The Cabinet also decided to hold an emergency session of both Houses of the legislature on September 24 to discuss the Cauvery issue.
In a political sense, the S.M. Krishna government's decision to "suspend" the release of water, in defiance of the CRA directive, was a move designed to appease hardline sentiments in the State, particularly in the Cauvery basin, where the mood amongst the rural population is uncompromisingly against the release of water to Tamil Nadu. The sentiment has been built up by pro-Kannada organisations and also by mainstream political parties seeking to enlarge their political base. The Krishna government had been under attack from the Janata Dal (Secular) and the Janata Dal (United), led by former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda and former Union Minister Ramakrishna Hegde respectively, for "betraying" the interests of Karnataka farmers. These parties and the Cauvery Hitharakshana Samiti, formed by G. Made Gowda, a rival power centre to the Chief Minister in his home district of Mandya, launched an agitation in the Cauvery basin districts once the government decided to release water. The agitation picked up steam, with farmers damaging the crest of the Kabini dam, organising blockades on the Bangalore-Mysore highway, picketing government offices and courting arrest as part of a `jail bharo' agitation. The Opposition parties called for a Bangalore bandh on September 12 to protest against the State government's decision. With memories of the Cauvery riots of 1991 still fresh in public memory, the city virtually closed down fearing reprisals from pro-Kannada groups.
By bowing to political pressure and popular sentiments in the State and stopping the release of water to Tamil Nadu, Krishna appears to have shot himself in the foot. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, the Chairman of the CRA, rejected Karnataka's reasons for unilaterally stopping the release of water and urged Krishna to resume the release. Moreover, a contempt petition against the State government, filed by Tamil Nadu, is pending before the Supreme Court. Having acceded to popular sentiments and stopped water release, any climbdown by Krishna now might lead to the escalation of popular protests. The government has already exposed itself to the charge that it is unable, by its own admission, to handle the law and order situation that is spinning out of control. On the other hand, by not adhering to the directive of the CRA, which he had welcomed at the time of its announcement, Krishna has exposed himself to the charge of flouting the decision of a statutory body set up for the purpose of conflict resolution. Krishna argued that the September 8 CRA directive came with a qualification, which is that the release of 0.8 tmc ft was contingent upon sufficient water inflows into the reservoirs. Krishna claimed that since the inflows had decreased since the CRA order, Karnataka was no longer in a position to release water.
By stopping the release of water to Tamil Nadu, Krishna may have snatched back the political initiative that had passed into the hands of the Opposition in the State. Although his tactics of brinkmanship may have won him support at home, it is likely to weaken the State's bargaining position before the CRA and the Supreme Court.
According to informed sources, the State government cannot be accused of contempt of court, as the CRA decision of September 8 supersedes that of the Supreme Court's. Nevertheless, the CRA is a body that has been set up under Section 6 of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and it was Karnataka that took this matter to the CRA for redress of the Supreme Court's order, which it got.
Both the Supreme Court and the CRA will seek an explanation from Karnataka for the shortfall in its committed releases. Karnataka committed itself to releasing 1.25 tmc ft between September 4 and 8 as per the Supreme Court order. It was to have released 0.8 tmc ft from September 9 as per the CRA directive. Between September 4 and 19, when the State government suspended releases, a quantum of 14.25 tmc ft should have been released to Mettur. Tamil Nadu has claimed that there is shortfall of 10.22 tmc ft in the water released to Mettur between September 3 and 19. However, the figures provided by the Central Water Commission from its gauging station at Biligundulu show that between September 4 and September 20, 9.73 tmc ft was released to Mettur which is well short of its commitment of 14.25 tmc ft. Informed sources in the State Irrigation Department told Frontline that as water takes two to three days to reach Tamil Nadu, the quantity of water would increase even further.
The Krishna government is caught between conflicting pulls, and unless nature intervenes and rains augment the inflows into the reservoirs of the Cauvery basin, the State will surely face a full-blown political crisis.
