Why Vijay tested Cauvery waters with Karnataka: ‘Even hostile nations try to resolve issues’

“It was I who first thought of and proposed the Bengaluru visit,” the chief minister said, acknowledging that the idea had generated sharply divided opinions even before it was shelved.

The statement amounted to Vijay’s clearest personal ownership of an outreach that had earlier been portrayed largely as a government initiative. It also sought to recast what opponents had described as a diplomatic misstep into an example of political risk-taking undertaken on behalf of farmers facing an uncertain irrigation season.

The Cauvery basin (Wikimedia Commons)

“Even hostile nations try to resolve issues through dialogue,” Vijay told the House. “I thought, why not at least try speaking with a neighbouring State? If we could have obtained even one positive sign towards resolving the issue, it would have been worthwhile.”

The remarks came days after Karnataka rejected the proposed meeting between the two Chief Ministers, insisting that the Cauvery dispute was already governed by the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and subsequent Supreme Court orders. The collapse of the proposed talks had triggered criticism from the Opposition, which argued that Tamil Nadu should rely exclusively on legal and institutional mechanisms rather than political engagement.

Without referring directly to those attacks, Vijay said his government had never wavered from its legal strategy.

“We remain firm in approaching this issue through legal means. There is absolutely no change in that,” he said, adding that the government had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking that no legal or administrative approval be granted to Karnataka’s proposed Mekedatu project after citing both the Tribunal’s final award and the Supreme Court judgment governing the sharing of Cauvery waters.

He insisted that protecting Tamil Nadu’s rights over Cauvery water and opposing the Mekedatu project remained non-negotiable.

At the same time, the chief minister argued that dialogue and litigation need not always be treated as mutually exclusive approaches. Rather than presenting the proposed Bengaluru visit as an alternative to legal action, he framed it as an additional political attempt that could have complemented the state’s courtroom strategy if it had yielded even limited progress.

Vijay also disclosed the personal calculation behind the proposal, saying several people had warned him that the initiative could end in public humiliation if Karnataka refused to engage.

“Even if that attempt had resulted in humiliation, I was prepared to endure it for the sake of the people of Tamil Nadu,” he said.

Seeking to place the dispute above partisan politics, Vijay rejected attempts to reopen historical blame over decisions taken decades ago.

Recalling debates held in the Assembly in 1969 after Karnataka began constructing upstream reservoirs, he said he had no intention of asking who had been the Water Resources Minister at the time or why those projects had been allowed.

“I do not wish to indulge in such cheap politics,” he said.

The chief minister began his reply by describing the Cauvery as “our lifeline” and “emotionally inseparable from us”, insisting that his government had “not even the slightest intention” of politicising the river dispute.