Water wars over sharing: Is India battle reay?

No amount of Tribunals, Supreme Court orders, Union Govt's interference could solve the burning disputes between these states. Most of the time while low lying areas are getting submerged with excess water during rainy season and floods, in summers severe droughts are witnessed. This is resulting in precious river water in excess going wasted into seas.

Some say interlinking of rivers is the only solution to the problem. However with river water sharing becoming a state subject, any steps in this regard by Union Govt is seen by the states as an infringement in the federal structure. It requires statesmen who think above political mileage to solve the problems. However with no such leader, states are seen fighting bitter battles over water sharing with people suffering.

Many say interlinking of river waters is nothing new and cite the example of construction of the Yamuna and Agra Canal during Mughal rule. Through these canals the water from Himalaya is made available to Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Even former President APJ. Abdul Kalam prescribed a nine point programme for the development of the country. Kalam while addressing students stressed that the core areas which need the concentration and attention of everyone were agriculture production, education, health care, information and communication technology, exports and infrastructure building.

He said Rivers like Cauvery, Krishna, Tungabhadra and others needed to be inter-linked to address acute water shortage. The Union Govt sometime back came with a proposal to interlink rivers with 30 links, including 16 peninsular and 14 Himalayan links, which were identified by the National Water Development Agency. Due to international compulsions, the Union Government was facing problems in proceeding with the river inter-linking project as regards points identified in the Himalayan region.

However some say Interlinking of river waters which is even endorsed by Supreme Court is a bad idea. To support their cause they point out that..

It gives directions to implement the ‘project', ie., the grand design as a whole, at a time when none of the thirty projects that constitute that grand design have gone through the stages of examination, evaluation and approval, and received final sanction.

By declaring the project to be in the national interest, it not only anticipates the result of the examination that is yet to take place, but also makes it extremely difficult for the various governmental agencies and ministries to undertake a rigorous and impartial examination.

Its reference to the unanimous view of all experts that the project is in the national interest is patently untrue, because there is a substantial body of expert opinion that is highly critical of the project. It fails to take notice of, or treats lightly, the strong dissent on the part of several State governments.

As an alternative they suggest careful, economical, conflict-free and sustainable intra-basin management should come first, and bringing water from elsewhere should be the last recourse. The project holds the potential of generating new conflicts between basins.