Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (June
2012)
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2009)
The Kaveri flows in southern Karnataka and then to Tamil Nadu. The sharing of waters of the Kaveri has been the source of a serious conflict between the Indian states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The genesis of this conflict, rests in two controversial agreementsone signed in 1892 and another in 1924between the erstwhile Madras Presidency and Princely State of Mysore. The 802 kilometres (498 mi) Kaveri river [1] has 32,000 km2 basin area in Karnataka and 44,000 km2 basin area in Tamil Nadu. The state of Karnataka contends that it does not receive its due share of water from the river as does Tamil Nadu. Karnataka claims that these agreements were skewed heavily in favour of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on "equitable sharing of the waters". Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, pleads that it has already developed almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2) of land and as a result has come to depend very heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in the state. Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit. The Government of India then constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. After hearing arguments of all the parties involved for the next 16 years, the tribunal delivered its final verdict on 5 February 2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 billion ft (12 km) of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 billion ft (7.6 km) to Karnataka; 30 billion ft (0.8 km) of Kaveri river water to Kerala and 7 billion ft (0.2 km) to Puducherry. The dispute
however, appears not to have concluded, as all four states deciding to file review petitions seeking clarifications and possible renegotiation of the order.
Drought area in the basin (in km) [3] Contribution of state (in 252 billion ft according to Ktaka) 425 (53.7%) (31.8%) [4] Contribution of state (in billion ft according to TN)[4][5] Quantity demanded by each state[citation needed] Share for each state as per TN's demand[citation needed] Share for each state as per tribunal verdict of 2007 [6]
Kerala Puducherry Total 2,866 (3.5%) -113 (14.3%) 126 (17%) 148(-) -81,155 34,660 790 740 1140.3 748 726
392 (52.9%) 222 (30%) 465 (41%) 177 (24%) 270 (37%)
566 (50%) 100 (9%) 9.3 (1%) 566 (76%) 5 (1%) 419 (58%) 30 (4%) 7 (1%)
Contents
1 History of the dispute 2 Post independence developments 3 1970s 4 1980s o 4.1 The constitution of the tribunal o 4.2 Interim award and the riots o 4.3 The crisis of 19951996 o 4.4 Constitution of the CRA o 4.5 The flare up and high drama of 2002 4.5.1 CRA meeting and the Supreme Court order 4.5.2 Demonstrations o 4.6 20032006 5 2007 - Judgement 6 2011 - Reports on Water Situation in Tamil Nadu 7 2012 8 Indian Government notifies Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal 9 See also 10 References 11 External links
cap for Madras Presidency was pegged at 301000|acre|km2. Nonetheless, Madras still appealed against the award and negotiations continued. Eventually an agreement was arrived at in 1924 and a couple of minor agreements were also signed in 1929 and 1933. The 1924 agreement was set to lapse after a run of 50 years. As a result of these agreements, Karnataka claims that Mysore was forced to give up rights.
1970s
While discussions continued, a Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) was constituted. The brief of the CFFC was to inspect the ground realities and come up with a report. The CFFC came up with a preliminary report in 1972 and a final report in 1973. Inter state discussions were held based on this report. Finally in 1974, a draft agreement which also provided for the creation of a Cauvery Valley Authority was prepared by the Ministry of Irrigation. This draft however, was not ratified. While all these discussions went on, Tamil Nadus irrigated lands had grown from a preMettur command area of 1,440,000 acres (5,800 km2) to 2,580,000 acres (10,400 km2) [7] while Karnatakas irrigated area stood at 680,000 acres (2,800 km). Karnataka maintains that these figures demonstrate the lop-sided nature of the agreement.[7]
In 1976, after a series of discussions between the two states and the Central government chaired by Jagjeevan Ram, the then Irrigation Minister, a final draft was prepared based on findings of the CFFC. This draft was accepted by all states and the Government also made an announcement to that effect in Parliament. Tamil Nadu came under Presidents rule soon after that and the agreement was put on the backburner. When Presidents rule was lifted, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) with M. G. Ramachandran at the helm came to power for the first time in Tamil Nadu and the dispute took a new turn. The Tamil Nadu government now rejected the draft agreement and started insisting that the 1924 agreement had only provided for an extension and not a review. It began insisting that status quo be restored and everyone go back to the agreements of 1892 and 1924. This however, did not cut ice with Karnataka which had throughout maintained that those agreements were partisan and had been signed between unequal partners. When Karnataka began construction of the Harangi dam at Kushalanagara in Kodagu, it was once again met with resistance from Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu went to court demanding the constitution of a Tribunal under the Interstate River Water Disputes Act (ISWD) of 1956. It also demanded the immediate stoppage of construction work at the dam site. As a result of Tamil Nadus protests, Karnataka had to fund the construction under the non-plan head and this led to a severe strain on its finances.[8]
1980s
Later Tamil Nadu withdrew its case demanding the constitution of a tribunal and the two states started negotiating again. Several rounds of discussions were held in the 1980s. The result was still, a stalemate. In 1986, a farmers association from Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court demanding the constitution of a tribunal. While this case was still pending, the two states continued many rounds of talks. This continued till April 1990 and yet yielded no results.
Karnataka - claimed 465 billion ft (13 km) as its share Kerala - claimed 99.8 billion ft (2.83 km) as its share Puducherry - claimed 9.3 billion ft (0.3 km) Tamil Nadu - claimed the flows should be ensured in accordance with the terms of the agreements of 1892 and 1924 (ie., 566 billion ft (16 km) for
Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; 177 billion ft (5 km) for Karnataka and 5 billion ft (0.1 km) for Kerala).
A minister from her cabinet, however represented Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery River Authority revised the Court's order from 1.25 billion ft to 0.8 billion ft per day. This time however, the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the Cauvery River Authority, refused to release any water succumbing to the large scale protests that had mounted in the Kaveri districts of the state. Tamil Nadu aghast at the defiance, went back to the Supreme Court. Karnataka now resumed the release of water for a few days, but stopped it again on 18 September as a protesting farmer committed suicide by jumping into the reservoir and the protests threatened to take a dangerous turn. The centre now stepped in and asked Karnataka to release the water. The Supreme Court meanwhile, in response to Tamil Nadu's petition asked the Cauvery River Authority for details of the water release and water levels in the reservoirs. The Cauvery River Authority in turn ordered inspections of the reservoirs. While the Cauvery River Authority inspected the reservoirs in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu (on 23 September) flatly refused to grant them permission to inspect its reservoirs. This move by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, coupled with her earlier walkout and boycott of the Cauvery River Authority meetings, came in for severe criticism from all quarters. On 30 September the Supreme court ordered Tamil Nadu to co-operate with the Cauvery River Authority and Tamil Nadu gave in Demonstrations The flare up had by now, well and truly taken an ugly turn and there were accusations and counter accusations being thrown all around in both states. The opposition parties in Tamil Nadu too had jumped into the fray and at the same time joining Jayalalitha in stinging rebukes of both the Centre and the Cauvery River Authority, while the opposition parties in Karnataka expressed their full solidarity with the Congress-led Karnataka government to protect their right to the Kaveri water. To add to all this, the dispute had already spilled onto the streets in the Mandya district of Karnataka and was threatening to spread to other parts of the state too. Precipitating the matters on the streets, the Supreme Court ordered Karnataka on 3 October to comply with the Cauvery River Authority and resume the release of water. Karnataka once again refused to obey the orders of the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu slapped another contempt petition on Karnataka and soon the issue degenerated into a 'free for all' with all and sundry from both states joining the protests. Soon, film actors and various other cross sections of society from both states were on the streets. Tamil TV channels and screening of Tamil films were blocked in Karnataka. Also all buses and vehicles from Tamil Nadu were barred from entering Karnataka. The belligerence soon hit a crescendo with Tamil activists calling for a stoppage of power from Neyveli Thermal Power Station to Karnataka as a tit-for-tat measure. A Pan-Tamil militant outfit (a month or so later) went ahead and blasted a major power transformer supplying power to the neighbouring states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.[12]
The Karnataka Chief Minister, S. M. Krishna on the other hand, fearing that the situation might spiral out of control, embarked on a padayatra from Bangalore to Mandya. While some saw this as merely a gimmick, some, like U R Ananthamurthy saw it as a good faith effort to soothe tempers and joined him in the yatra.
20032006
This period did not see any major flare up in the dispute even though the summer of 2003 saw a dry spell in both states. The monsoons in 2004, 2005 and 2006 was quite copious and this helped a great deal in keeping the tempers calm. While the last 3 or 4 years have been relatively quiet as far as jingoistic voices are concerned, a flurry of development has been afoot in the courts. The term of the tribunal was initially set to expire in August 2005. However, in the light of the many arguments the court was yet to hear, the tribunal filed a request for extension of its term. The extension was granted and the tribunal's term was extended for another year until September 2006. Early in 2006, a major controversy erupted over the 'Assessor's report' that was apparently 'leaked' to the press. The report had suggested a decision which Karnataka summarily rejected. Another major controversy erupted when just a couple of months before the September 2006 deadline, the tribunal recommended the formation of another expert committee to study the 'ground realities' yet again. This was unanimously and vehemently opposed by all the four states party to the dispute. The states contended that this move would further delay a judgment which has already been 16 years in the making. More than the disapproval of all the four states of the new expert committee that was proposed, the proposal turned out to be a major embarrassment for the tribunal. This was because, not only were the four states opposed to it, even the Chief Judge of the tribunal was opposed to it. However the other two assistant judges on 3-man adjudication team, overruled the opinion of the main Judge. And all this was done in a packed courtroom and this led to petty bickering and heated arguments between the three judges in the packed courtroom. This left everyone in the courtroom shocked and the Tamil Nadu counsel was moved to remark that it was embarrassing that the judges probably needed help settling their own disputes before adjudicating on the dispute at hand. Nonetheless, the new expert committee was formed and carried out further assessments. Subsequently, the extended deadline of the tribunal also passed and the tribunal was given yet another extension.
2007 - Judgement
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007.[13] [14][15][16][17][18] According to its verdict,[19] Tamil Nadu gets 419 billion ft (12 km) of Kaveri water while Karnataka gets 270 billion ft (7.6 km). The actual release of water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu is to be 192 billion ft (5.4 km) annually. Further, Kerala will get 30 billion ft and Puducherry 7 billion ft. Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, unhappy with the decision, filed a revision petition before the tribunal seeking a review.[citation needed]
2012
On 19 Sep 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is also the Chairman of the Cauvery River Authority, directed Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of Kaveri water to Tamil Nadu at Biligundlu (the border) daily from September 21 t-19}}</ref> But Karnataka felt that this was impractical due to the drought conditions prevailing because of the failed monsoon. Karnataka then walked out of the high level meeting as a sign of protest. On 21 September, Karnataka filed a petition before the Cauvery River Authority seeking review of its 19 September ruling. On 24 September, Tamil Nadu's Chief minister directed the officials to immediately file a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to Karnataka to release Tamil Nadu its due share of water.[23] On 28 Sep 2012, the Supreme Court slammed the Karnataka government for failing to comply with the directive of the Cauvery River Authority.[24] Left with no other option, Karnataka started releasing water. This led to wide protests and violence in Karnataka. [25] On 4 October 2012, the Karnataka government filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on its September 28 order directing it to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water everyday to Tamil Nadu, until October 15. [26] On 6 October 2012, Several Kannada organisations, under the banner of Kannada Okkoota, called a Karnataka bandh (close down) on October 6 in protest against the Kaveri water release.[27] On 8 October, the Supreme Court of India announced the release of 9,000 cusecs has to be continued and it is up to the Cauvery River Authority's head, the Prime Minister, as a responsible person, to ensure this happened. The Prime Minister ruled out a review of the Cauvery River Authoritys decision until 20 October, rejecting
the plea by both the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders from Karnataka. Within a few hours, Karnataka stopped release of Kaveri water to Tamil Nadu. [28] On 9 October 2012, Tamil Nadu's chief minister directed authorities to immediately file a contempt petition against the Karnataka government for flouting the verdict of the Supreme Court by unilaterally stopping the release of water to Tamil Nadu.[29] Tamil Nadu made a fresh plea in the Supreme Court on 17 October, reiterating its demand for appropriate directions to be issued to Karnataka to make good the shortfall of 48 tmcft of water as per the distress sharing formula.[30] On 15 November 2012, The Cauvery Monitoring Committee directed the Karnataka government to release 4.81 tmcft to Tamil Nadu between 16 and 30 November.[31] On 6 December, the supreme court directed Karnataka to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu. The court asked the union government to indicate the time frame within which the final decision of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, which was given in February 2007, was to be notified. This decision was given in the view of saving the standing crops of both the states.[clarification needed][32]
Karnataka Basin Area (in km)[36] Share for each state as per Cauvery Tribunal final award Dated 19 February 2012 [37] 34,273 (42%) 270 (37%)
Tamil Kerala Puducherry Total Nadu 44,016 2,866 148(-) 81,155 (54%) (3.5%) 419 (58%) 30 (4%) 7 (1%) 726
Mullaperiyar dam This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2011) Tamil Nadu-Kerala dam row (alternatively India dam row) is an ongoing row and the long legal battle between the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala about the Mullaperiyar dam on the Periyar river. Although the 116-year-old Mullaperiyar dam is located in Kerala, it is operated by the government of Tamil Nadu which signed a 999year lease agreement with the former British government to irrigate farmland on its side. The agreement was signed by the Secretary of Madras State (now Tamil Nadu) under the British Raj and the King of Travancore. Kerala now says the dam is too old and dilapidated and poses immense danger to millions of people living in the region and that it needs to be destroyed and rebuilt - a move opposed by Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu maintains that the dam was repaired in 1979 and insists the dam's walls have been strengthened and that it can hold more water than the current level of 136 ft (41m). Protests, calling for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to intervene, erupted across Kerala demanding construction of a new dam to replace the Mullaperiyar dam. These new protests were triggered by recent low-intensity earthquakes that prompted scientists to say the dam could not withstand more-intensive tremors.
Oommen Chandy, the Chief Minister of Kerala This was followed by the chief minister of Kerala's meeting with Manmohan Singh to try to resolve the damaging row with neighbouring Tamil Nadu. As the row intensified, police in Kerala banned gatherings of more than five people at the dam near the Tamil Nadu border. The move was followed clashes between people from the two states near the town of Kumali. However, in the countries capital, Members of Parliament from Kerala and Tamil Nadu clashed in India's upper house of parliament over the Issue. Thousands of people of Kerala have formed a 208 km human wall in a following day to demand a replacement to the dam although Tamil Nadu insists it is safe and that water levels can be raised. The protest was led by the opposition Left Democratic Front (LDF) in which politicians, social activists and families along the way took part.[1] The central government has invited senior officials from both states to discuss the issue later in December 2011.
Contents
1 Interstate dispute 2 Justice A.S. Anand Committee (The Empowered Committee) 3 Construction of a new dam 4 References 5 See also
Interstate dispute
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2011)
Mullaperiyar reservoir
A poster in a bus in Tamil Nadu against Kerala's state in this issue For Tamil Nadu, Mullaperiyar dam and the diverted Periyar waters act as a lifeline for Theni, Madurai, Sivaganga and Ramnad Districts, providing water for irrigation, drinking and also for generation of power in Lower Periyar Power Station. Tamil Nadu has insisted on exercising its unfettered rights to control the dam and its waters, based on the 1866 lease agreement. Kerala has pointed out the unfairness in the 1886 lease agreement and has challenged the validity of this agreement. However safety concerns posed by the 116 year old dam to the safety of the people of Kerala in the event of a dam collapse, have been the focus of disputes from 2009 onward. Kerala's proposal for decommissioning the dam and construction of a new dam, has been challenged by Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu has insisted on raising the water level in the dam to 142 feet, pointing out crop failures. One estimate states that "the crop losses to Tamil Nadu, because of the reduction in the height of the dam, between 1980 and 2005 is a whopping 40,000 crores. In the process the farmers of the erstwhile rain shadow areas in Tamil Nadu who had started a thrice yearly cropping pattern had to go back to the bi-annual cropping." [2] The Kerala Government maintains that this is not true. During the year 197980 the gross area cultivated in Periyar command area was 171,307 acres (693.25 km2). After the
lowering of the level to 136 ft (41 m), the gross irrigated area increased and in 199495 it reached 229,718 acres (929.64 km2).[3] The Tamil Nadu government had increased its withdrawal from the reservoir, with additional facilities to cater to the increased demand from newly irrigated areas.[citation needed] In 2006, the Supreme Court of India by its decision by a three member division bench, allowed for the storage level to be raised to 142 feet (43 m) pending completion of the proposed strengthening measures, provision of other additional vents and implementation of other suggestions.[4] However, the Kerala Government promulgated a new "Dam Safety Act" against increasing the storage level of the dam, which has not been objected by the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu challenged it on various grounds. The Supreme Court issued notice to Kerala to respond, however did not stay the operation of the Act even as an interim measure. The Court then advised the States to settle the matter amicably, and adjourned hearing in order to enable them to do so. The Supreme Court of India termed the act as not unconstitutional.[5] Meanwhile, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution bench to hear the case considering its wide ramifications.[6] Kerala did not object giving water to Tamil Nadu. Their main cause of objection is the dams safety as it is as old as 110 years. Increasing the level would add more pressure to be handled by already leaking dam.[7] Tamil Nadu wants the 2006 order of Supreme court be implemented so as to increase the water level to 142 feet (43 m). In 2000 Frontline one author stated thus: "For every argument raised by Tamil Nadu in support of its claims, there is counter-argument in Kerala that appears equally plausible. Yet, each time the controversy gets embroiled in extraneous issues, two things stand out: One is Kerala's refusal to acknowledge the genuine need of the farmers in the otherwise drought-prone regions of Tamil Nadu for the waters of the Mullaperiyar; the other is Tamil Nadu's refusal to see that it cannot rely on or continue to expect more and more from the resources of another State to satisfy its own requirements to the detriment of the other State. A solution perhaps lies in acknowledging the two truths, but neither government can afford the political repercussions of such a confession".[8]
oppose the apex court's decision to form the five-member committee, but also said that the state government will not nominate any member to it.[10] The then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said that immediately after the Supreme Court announced its decision to set up a committee, he had written to Congress president asking the Centre to mediate between Kerala and Tamil Nadu on Mullaperiyar issue.[11] However, the then Leader of Opposition i.e., the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J. Jayalalithaa objected to the TN Government move. She said that this would give advantage to Kerala in the issue.[12] Meanwhile, Kerala Water Resources Minister N. K. Premachandran told the state Assembly that the State should have the right of construction, ownership, operation and maintenance of the new dam, while giving water to Tamil Nadu on the basis of a clear cut agreement. He also informed the media that Former Supreme Court Judge Mr. K. T. Thomas will represent Kerala on the expert panel constituted by Supreme Court.[13] On 8 March 2010, Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that it was not interested in adjudicating the dispute with Kerala before the special empowered committee appointed by the apex court for settling the inter-State issue.[14] However, Supreme Court refused to accept Tamil Nadu's request to scrap the decision to form the empowered committee. The Supreme Court also criticized the Union Government on its reluctance in funding the empowered committee.[15] Implementing directions of the Supreme Court, the Central Government extended the terms of Empowered Committee for a further period of six months, namely till April 30, 2012.[6]
October, 2009. On Sept. 9, 2009 stated it had already communicated to the Government of India as well as to the Government of Kerala that there is no need for construction of a new dam by the Kerala Government, as the existing dam after it is strengthened, functions like a new dam.[6]