INTER-STATE WATER DISPUTES IN INDIA
Federal India is a political system where the States and the Central govt. have their respective spheres of governance mentioned in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. Though the makers of our Constitution have never used the world ‘Federal’ in the Constitution itself the system of polity was designed in the way that it cannot said to !e anything !ut Federal. The Federal India has "# States and 7 $nion Territories Territories today. These These are political units which are formed from time to time in the country%the recent one !eing Telangana. The &ater and the rivers ignorant of these 'olitical units flow in one and often in more than one State or $nion Territory. (ota!le among them are !ig rivers like )anga which flows from $ttarakhand to &est *engal !efore entering into *angladesh (armada flowing from +adhya 'radesh to )ulf of Cam!ay in )u,arat -avi *eas and Satlu, which flow !oth in imachal 'radesh and 'un,a! among others. *eing in the +onsoon/dependent country where a democracy prevails the rivers have !een the su!,ect of 0isputes !etween States. DISPUTES AMONG STATES:
&ater is a precious resource which is essential for the sustenance of life on 1arth. Indian cities in the ancient period have !een set on the !anks of the rivers and the India Culture that developed places rivers as sacrosanct%often comparing them with +others and )oddesses like )odavari. The significance of rivers and the sentiments of people attached with these rivers have made the water disputes to !e a lingering issue in Independent India. Conscious of the arrival of such issues in future the fathers of our Constitution have made an arrangement of their solution !y adding 2rticle "3" to our Constitution which provides for an Inter/State &ater Tri!unal. This tri!unal has !een successful in resolving several &ater related disputes like that of (armada -iver &ater &ater 0ispute. There however e4ists some other disputes for which the States had to resort to the Supreme Court and have had !een the !one of contention !etween two States. 5ne such issue is the !uilding of 0ams on a river. *uilding a dam is not always connected with the flow of water as is the popular !elief !ut does also involve a lot many other comple4 pro!lems. 5ne such pro!lem is the displacement of people and another is the loss to the environment. The !uilding of a dam re6uire large tracts of land to !e su!merged under the water. The apparent su!mergence of land re6uires people living in those areas to move to other places. The dismal record of states to reha!ilitate and resettle these displaced people forces them to move to areas with !etter employment prospects. Several such people move to other states and change the ethnic ethnic and demogr demograph aphic ic profil profilee of that that state. state. It leads leads to ethnic ethnic clashes clashes in the state where
displaced people migrated%giving political parties new issues for their sustenance%and making the other states more vocal against the &ater related policies of other states. The loss to the environment is another fallout of a 0am which makes the riparian state to protest and the dispute that follows finds its way to the IS&T or the Supreme Court sooner than latter. The recent amuna/Satlu, 8ink Canal dispute !etween 'un,a! and aryana when elections are near in 'un,a! and Cauvery/-iver &ater 0ispute !etween 9arnataka and Tamilnadu when election are close in 9arnataka can !oth !e seen from the prism of politics !ased on genuine pro!lems of the people. -ecently the Inter/State &ater flows have !een tempered with for lodging the protests !y some communities. :ats !arring the flow of water to 0elhi is a case in point. NOT SO EVERGREEN:
There is a !ad news for people using &ater disputes for their advantages that the &ater disputes !etween the States are increasingly !eing solved and this makes the future of such politics and protest not so !right. The evidence of it can !e seen in the creation of a permanent Inter/State &ater Tri!unal !y the Central govt. The Cauvery +anagement *oard is working on solving the current dispute !etween the two South Indian neigh!ours. The govt. recently has given a go/ ahead to the 9en/*etwa Interstate &ater 'ro,ect which heralds a new era in the peaceful use of the river waters. The 'olavaram pro,ect recently started in 2ndhra 'radesh is another pro,ect that has its reservoirs in Chattisgarh and 5disha states. It ena!les the people of these two states to go for fishing recreation and others. The clever Indian 'oliticians who use the differences over water gaining votes in election find it difficult to continue with their tactics with the inter/linking of rivers which assure the constant flow of water for the people. 2n icing on the cake for the people on this is the (ational &aterways 2ct passed !y the 'arliament recently. It provides for the creation of;<; (ational &aterways for transportation of Cargo and the peop le. For the waterways to sustain there will !e an e4tensive deepening widening dredging of rivers and that too !y the $nion govt. which would not only ensure a good amount of water in the rivers !ut also more movement of people through waterways and esta!lishing of more people to people contacts which would increase the cooperation among states. WATER DISPUTES—A LASTING SOLUTION
The Centre has decided to set up a single permanent Tri!unal to ad,udicate all inter/state river water disputes su!suming e4isting tri!unals a step which is aimed at resolving grievances of states in a speedy manner. *esides the Tri!unal the government has also proposed to float some !enches !y amending the Inter/State &ater 0isputes 2ct ;#=3 to look into disputes as and when re6uired. $nlike the Tri!unal the !enches will cease to e4ist once the disputes are resolved.
9ey facts> The proposed amendment to the Inter/State -iver &ater 0ispute 2ct of ;#=3 talks of !enches under the permanent tri!unal that will look into specific disputes. It also provides for setting up of a dispute resolution committee co mprising e4perts and policy/makers every time a clash crops up%the committee must try and resolve river/water sharing fights !efore these are taken to the tri!unal. The plan to put a ?/year deadline for delivering a verdict is also appealing given how long disputes last. In order to give more teeth to the Tri!unal it is proposed that whenever it gives order the verdict gets notified automatically. $ntil now the government re6uired to notify the awards causing delay in its implementation.
ow are disputes ad,udicated presently@ 2s per the current provisions of the ;#=3 2ct a tri!unal can !e formed after a state government approaches $nion )overnment with such re6uest and the Centre is convinced of the need to form the tri!unal. 1ight such tri!unals e4ist now. 2fter they have heard the matter and awarded their decisions the tri!unals are allowed to collapse. This system has had some successes especially with the first generation of tri!unals set up soon after independence%to ad,udicate on the 9rishna (armada and )odavari rivers.
'ro!lems with the present system> The present system has struggled to !ring warring parties on the same page and offer e6uita!le solutions. It has led to protracted proceedings and e4treme delays in dispute resolution. $nder the present system the Centre takes years to decide whether a matter needs to !e heard !y a tri!unal in the first place. 2lso after the tri!unal has !een formed it again takes many years to pronounce its award. 2nother reason for delay is the re6uirement that the Centre notify the order of the tri!unal to !ring it into effect. 5pacity in the institutional framework and guidelines that define these proceedings have also added to the pro!lem. *esides ensuring compliance is another pro!lem. The a!sence of authoritative water data that is accepta!le to all parties also makes it difficult to even set up a !aseline for ad,udication. *esides India’s messy federal polity and its colonial legacy have set the stage for n/ compliance wherein state governments have sometimes re,ected tri!unal awards. F or e4ample the 'un,a! government played truant in the case of the -avi/*eas tri!unal. It should !e noted here that water is a state su!,ect !ut the Aregulation and development of inter/state rivers and river valleys in the pu!lic interestB is on the $nion list.
The courts have also often !een ignored including the Supreme Court which importantly only has very limited ,urisdiction over the tri!unals as per the Inter/State -iver &ater 0isputes 2ct of ;#=3. This has its roots in the )overnment of India 2ct ;#?= which mandated separate tri!unals and limited the ,urisdiction of the federal cou rt.
&hat’s good a!out the proposed permanent tri!unal> Since water/sharing disputes are only going to rise and the e4isting mechanisms of setting up tri!unals for each case are clearly not working the government’s plan to set up a permanent over/arching tri!unal to ad,udicate all such fights looks appealing. There will !e an e4pert agency to collect data on rainfall irrigation and surface water flows. This ac6uires importance !ecause party/States have a tendency to fiercely 6uestion data provided !y the other side. 2 permanent forum having relia!le data in its hands sounds like an ideal mechanism to apportion water.
Challenges !efore the tri!unal> The Ca!inet’s proposal to have a permanent tri!unal that will su!sume e4isting tri!unals is e4pected to provide for speedier ad,udication. *ut whether this will resolve the pro!lem of protracted proceedings is dou!tful. )iven the num!er of ongoing inter/State disputes and those likely to arise in future it may !e difficult for a single institution with a former Supreme Court ,udge as its chairperson to give its ruling within three years. Secondly its interlocutory orders as well as final award are likely to !e challenged in the Supreme Court. The idea of a 0ispute -esolution Committee an e4pert !ody that will seek to resolve inter/State differences !efore a tri!unal is approached may also prove to !e another disincentive for needless litigation.
&hy is the new move !eing criticied@ 2ccording to few e4perts the Centre’s efforts to set up a single permanent tri!unal to ad,udicate inter/state water disputes will undermine the principles of federalism and will make things more complicated instead of resolving them. It is !ecause Centralied tri!unal would not yield the desired results and would only further delay the implementation of final awards of e4isting tri!unals. &ater management e4perts say this could cause long legal !attles. It may also result in an enormous legal !attle.
&ay ahead> Today inter/state water disputes are no longer ,ust a!out water allocation. They have !ecome hugely politicied%the recent eruption of the Cauvery dispute framed as an ethnic identity issue !etween Tamilians and 9annadigas which led to widespread civil unrest is only the most recent e4ample. 'u!lic opinion is an important factor that cannot !e wished away. The Central
government must keep these factors in mind when setting up the proposed tri!unal. 2 ro!ust institutional framework%and a transparent one to ease state and pu !lic !uy/in%is a must. &ithout that cooperative approach India’s water dispute resolution is unlikely to see much improvement. 2lso water disputes have humanitarian dimensions including agrarian pro!lems worsened !y drought and monsoon failures. 2d,udication !y whatever mechanism should not !e at the mercy of partisan leaders who turn claims into dangerously emotive issues. Institutional mechanisms should !e !acked !y the political will to make them work.
Conclusion> The Centre’s proposal to set up a single permanent tri!unal su!suming all e4isting ad hoc tri!unals to ad,udicate on inter/state river water disputes could !e a ma,or step towards streamlining the dispute redressal mechanism. *ut it alone will not !e a!le to address the different kinds of pro!lems%legal administrative constitutional and p olitical%that plague the overall framework. 2 comprehensive policy and relook is the need of the hour.
