Steady, Yeddy

Even before the last buntings are stowed away, the first time chief minister of the BJP’s first ever government installed south of the Vindhyas could find himself grappling with an old and arduous question. B.S. Yeddyurappa must deal with the inter-state dispute that has erupted around the Rs 1,334 Hogenakkal Integrated Drinking Water Project. The row between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu flared up in the countdown to the Karnataka polls. Violence in one state was followed by agitation in the other, and then politicians on both sides agreed to cap the controversy till a new government took over in Karnataka. Yeddyurappa must not only contend with allegations that he himself contributed to the resuscitation of tensions — many point fingers at his visit to the spot in March. He must also negotiate the classic dilemma of a national party faced with regional compulsions, especially of the emotive kind. Should he take a tough stand on water-sharing, won’t it have implications for his party’s future coalitionability in Tamil Nadu, especially now that it is more ambitious in the country’s south? For much the same reason, the Congress may be permitting itself a sigh of relief amid the gloom of the debacle. It is not difficult to imagine that a Congress chief minister in Karnataka negotiating this emotionally fraught issue with the DMK chief minister in Tamil Nadu would touch off not-so-pleasant frissons in the UPA.

Of course, Yeddyurappa could do what other politicians in his predicament have done. He could lob the ball into the legal court. That’s why most of the water disputes in this country continue to fester. For all its specificity — the fact that an agreement was said to have been arrived at between both sides in 1998 when the NDA ruled the Centre or the fact that it involves the provision of safe drinking water to two backward districts in Tamil Nadu — the Hogenakkal dispute is not so different from other water-sharing controversies. Each state through which a river passes, or which is included in its watershed, demands a larger share. A chief minister can allow another state the larger use of water from a river at his political peril. It had been proposed that river waters be treated as a national resource and control be vested in a national authority; but the Constituent Assembly left it largely to the goodwill of the states.

We need a mechanism to share waters that is accepted by all. We need to do this, and not just because of the people of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. We need to do so because India cannot afford to be at war with itself over a precious resource.