A four decades old river waters disputes has been laid to rest at least until 2048 by Justice J.M. Panchal, unless his award is modified by the Supreme Court. At the moment there are no signs of any of the parties planning to file an appeal. When both parties to an adjudication express happiness, the adjudicator gets full marks. Justice J. M. Panchal gets that rare compliment from both sides.
When an inter-State river passes through several States and in a state of flow, it cannot be said that the waters of that river is the entitlement of any single riparian State. The centre has a great responsibility in resolving inter-state disputes on river waters. Equitable distribution and equalisation of benefits from a river water must be ensured by the Central government without prejudice to the interests of any state which has displayed advance foresight and efficiency in formulating schemes without any way affecting the eco-system of the region. The centre has abdicated that responsibility and the states have been pushed into inter-state bitter battles. Technical issues to be solved based upon equitable and fair consideration have been permitted to be entangled into political controversy and actual issues like climate, geography and hydrology of the basin of the basin apart from other consideration of equity and ecology are subjected to political consideration. With the failure of the centre, it is now a trend that states (I mean politicians) depend on tribunal adjudication for redressal of grievances and fora established for participatory discussions have been rendered nugatory for lack of necessary frame work. Though in 1956 itself the parliament enacted the River Boards Act which sought to provide continuous mechanism for river basin planning, that law has been made dysfunctional.
The river ‘Mahadayi’ in Karnataka called ‘Mandovi’ in Goa with a total length of 80.8 kms originates in Karnataka with 28.8 kms in Karnataka and 52 kms. In Goa, has 19 tributaries including the now famous Kalasa and Bhanduri. The problem originated in 1980 when S.R. Bommai committee suggested linking of the rivers Mahadayi and Malaprabha to deal with the water crises in Karnataka which led to killing of two farmers in what is called the 1980 Naragund rebellion.
Despite negotiations since 1985, the issue reached flash point in 2002 with the Congress government in Karnataka getting approval from a BJP-led NDA government to build a canal across the two tributaries of the Mahadayi – Kalasa and Bhanduri nala. The said project attempted diversion of 7.56 tmc ft water from the Mahadayi to the Malaprabha basin in Karnataka to provide water to the parched areas of Belgaum, Dharwad, Gadag and Bagalkot.
The river water disputes tribunal awards is all about ‘sharing’ when our state decided to approach the Supreme Court for constitution of the tribunal, that ought to have been kept in mind. We made non diversion as the heart and soul of the dispute. Of course Karnataka asked for the moon by its demand of total claim of 36.5 tmc ft of water including about 12.13 tmc ft diversion of water outside the Mahadayi basin. The question of who won and who lost could be seen from the fact that the Kalasa Bhanduri nala Project of 2002 aimed to divert 7.56 tmc ft water while Goa opposed any diversion from the tributaries of Mahadayi. In 2002 when the NDA government approved the project, the local BJP government in Goa claimed that the project would result in a huge ecological imbalance in Goa as the river supports the fragile eco system in the western ghats.
Recently Goa’s water resources minister had claimed ‘not a drop’ would be permitted to be diverted. It is in this context that the verdict will have to be seen. The tribunal allocated 1.8 tmc ft of water to Kalasa and 2.8 tmc ft to Bhanduri as against the claim of 3.56 and 4 tmc ft for Kalasa and Bhanduri respectively. Karnataka’s claim for 14 tmc ft of water for hydro generational and Kotni dam has been considered 8.02 tmc ft granted. In legal parlance it can be said ‘Karnataka’s claim has been partly allowed’ bringing immediate cheer in the north Karnataka region.
As the news of the verdict spread farmers in Hubbali and other regions of North Karnataka began to stage protests while the Karnataka CM did not immediately react. The Mahadayi Horata Samithi welcomed the verdict. It expressed satisfaction claiming the people of Karnataka got justice. The Goa CM tweeted from US that the verdict has done justice to Goa and thanked the legal team. Goa’s Mhadei Bachao Abhiyaan immediately dubbed the verdict as a total loss.
The bitterness of the dispute was built around non diversion of the waters. Perhaps it was too early to tweet. The Goa CM ought to have taken some time to digest the 12 volumes running into 2711 pages. The aura created by tweet fizzled out the moment protests in North Karnataka were withdrawn. Having tweeted so early in the day, the government could not take a different stand.
The verdict has stopped making news in the Kannada news papers while it continues to dominate the headlines herein Goa. The media blitzkrieg built around the legal team and the hype based upon the interim order passed in July 2016, a perception was built that Karnataka has lost the case even before the final arguments were heard. The kind of fees unheard of in this tiny state also led to the unwarranted attention to this case which a facebook post finally summed up the question of who won and who lost — that the Goa’s legal team won!
(The writer is practising advocate, senior faculty in law and political analyst)
