The latest provocation

Now, once again the Cauvery issue is back in the headlines. The draft notification issued by the Centre proposing the constitution of a Cauvery River Authority is the latest provocation for politicians of all conviction to begin mudslinging each other, even before attempting to put their heads together to hammer out a consensus in the larger interests of the State. The authority is billed to give effect to the implementation of the interim orders of the Tribunal.

Called the Cauvery Water Implementation of the order of 1991 Scheme, the authority, if notified, will be headed by the Union Water Resources Secretary and an official of the rank of joint secretary from the Union Home Ministry.

Even as Karnataka spews venom against the proposed arrangement, the Inder Kumar Gujral Government is on the offensive with the excuse that the Centre is answerable to the Supreme Court following a petition from Tamil Nadu.Whatever the Centre8217;s claims, Chief Minister J.H. Patel declared after an all-party meeting on Tuesday, 8220;The meeting rejected the Centre8217;s proposed scheme, and decided to abide by the resolution passed by both the Houses of the Legislature renouncing the interim award8221;.

Meanwhile, the Karnataka Government has decided to recourse to legal action to defend its stand on the contentious issue. Added Patel: 8220;We will defend our case before the Supreme Court when it comes up for hearing on July 15.8221; Interestingly, former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda8217;s bete noire, Ramakrishna Hegde, too participated in the all-party meeting and supported the all-party decision.

The grounds for the rejection of the notification, according to Irrigation Minister K.N. Nage Gowda are: The Cauvery Waters Disputes Tribunal has not finalised the formula to be applied during drought or a lean monsoon season, and it does not take into account the seasonal changes, including delay in the onset of monsoon.

This time too Deve Gowda has been caught in the Cauvery cross-fire with a prominent section of political leaders accusing him of being the man behind the notification. Says former Congress Chief Minister M Veerappa Moily: 8220;The draft was prepared in April last when Deve Gowda was the Prime Minister, and the Additional Solicitor General had informed the Supreme Court then about the notification8230;Gowda cannot now say he does not know. Is this the way he safeguards the interests of Karnataka?8221; Equally acerbic were the observations of the Opposition leaders in the Legislature, M. Mallikarjuna Kharge and H.K. Patil, against the former Prime Minister from Karnataka.

They said: 8220;The former Prime Minister8217;s silence on the issue reflects that he has lost the moral authority to articulate on the issue as he had failed to safeguard the State8217;s interests when he was the Prime Minister.8221;Whatever the claims and counter-claims with regard to Deve Gowda, the concluding paragraph from the statement of facts that he presented to the panel headed by Y K Alagh as the Chief Minister in January 1996 throws an interesting light on his role.

8220;The storage available in Karnataka is inadequate to meet its own requirements. As against this, it can be seen that the requirement of Tamil Nadu to its standing crops is 26.7 tmc as against 41 tmc of surface water resources available excluding the water stored in barrages and anicuts below Mettur and the available ground water resources. Thus, the demand of Tamil Nadu for more water is not for saving the standing crops but for storing more water8230;8221;

But, once again in the squabbling amongst politicians in Karnataka, it has been forgotten that the Cauvery water dispute, and not Deve Gowda, is the issue of debate.

Almost two hundred years of discontentAtilde;?1807: Discord over the sharing of Cauvery waters between the erstwhile Madras Presidency and the princely State of Mysore begins, with the British Resident in Mysore rejecting the Tanjore collector8217;s claim that construction of bunds in Mysore has led to decline in flows.

1870: Madras and Mysore battle over the formulation of an irrigation scheme in Mysore to tackle drought conditions.

1892: First agreement between Madras and Mysore, stipulating that Mysore cannot take up new irrigation projects without prior approval from Madras.1914: British arbitrator H.D. Gribbin gives an award favourable to Mysore. Madras appeals to the British Government.

1924: A 50-year fresh agreement which upholds the claims of Madras for a larger share of Cauvery water is signed.

1929: Mysore commissions Kannambadi dam KRS and completes it in 1931.1934: Madras completes Mettur dam followed by several smaller ones in both basin States under the 1924 pact.

1939: Mysore suggests a meeting to discuss the outstanding issues arising out of the pact. Madras rejects it the next year.

1970: Karnataka declares 1924 pact will lapse automatically in 1974. Tamil Nadu asks Centre to stop Karnataka from going ahead with its irrigation projects, failing which, demands setting up of a tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.

1971: Tamil Nadu moves Supreme Court for injunction against Karnataka irrigation projects, which gets rejected, and an application for constitution of a tribunal is withdrawn.

1972: Both the States agree to resolve the dispute through negotiations with the Centre convening a meeting of Chief Ministers of all basin States.

Centre sets up a fact-finding committee to collect data on water usage.1974: Centre convenes a Chief Minister8217;s meeting and circulates draft proposals on water sharing.

1978: Basin States reach a draft agreement which suggests setting up of a Cauvery valley authority and water savings of 100 tmc feet and 25 tmc feet by Tamil Nadu and Karnataka respectively. The water saved is to be shared among the four basin States. This agreement is repudiated in subsequent years.

1988: The Supreme Court directs the two basin States to have bilateral talks following earlier writ petitions filed by farmers. Tamil Nadu reports failure, Court allows time till 1990.

1990: Centre rules out further negotiations, leaves matter to SC, which directs the centre to constitute a tribunal. Three-member tribunal set up.

At the first meeting, Tamil Nadu and Kerala seek interim relief pending final award. 1991: Tribunal gives interim award on June 25 directing Karnataka to ensure 205 tmc of water at Mettur from June to May. Centre notifies the interim award. Karnataka witnesses widespread violence in protest.

1993: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha Jayaram goes on fast on July 18 demanding implementation of interim order by Karnataka. Fast ends, after four days following the Centre8217;s assurance to set up monitoring and implementation panels These are yet to be formed.

1995: In June, Karnataka released five tmc feet of water to Tamil Nadu, leading to widespread protest. In December, Tamil Nadu demands release of 30 tmc feet of water to save standing crops, follows up with petition to Prime Minister P V. Narasimha Rao and the Supreme Court. The Court refers the matter to the tribunal, which directs Karnataka to release two tmc feet on Dec 19. With Karnataka refusing, the matter goes back to the SC which asks the Prime Minister to find a solution.

1996: The prime minister requests Karnataka to release six tmc feet of water, which the State obliges. In June, Tamil Nadu makes a fresh demand for 11 tmc feet of water and moves the Supreme Court. Karnataka releases five tmc and asks the Centre to initiate a negotiated settlement.