Time to put a price tag to Karnataka’s contempt

The mettle of the CRA or the tribunal is tested during the years of distress. So is the sagacity and maturity of the political leadership of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The test failed on both fronts this year. So the matter has been taken to two extremes—the streets and the apex court. Both evoked a good response for the lower riparian state of Tamil Nadu.

The Supreme Court has twice ordered a ‘‘distress sharing’’ arrangement. On August 3, the Court directed Karnataka to release 1.25 tmc ft of water a day to Tamil Nadu. Subsequently on September 7, CRA ordered a reduced flow of 0.8 tmc ft a day. Karnataka did not comply with this order. On October 4, the Supreme Court issued a second order that the Karnataka Government must release the water determined by CRA until the authority came up with a revised directive.

And on Tamil Nadu’s streets, cinema stars ‘‘blockaded’’ Neyveli power and put themselves to ‘‘distress’’ by fasting! Yet the delta farmers, who are eating rats to survive, have not received one cusec of Cauvery water.

If this distressing situation continues, not only the famished farmers and labourers of the delta, but also the people of the nation will lose all faith in the due process of law. Karnataka has to compensate the affected farmers if not with water, in a different form. They should also make up for the loss of employment for the poor labourers. This can come in the shape of grains and other commodities of daily use to families of this rural populace.

Two high-level Government of India committees have assessed the extent of loss and the distress suffered by the delta population, both farmers and labourers. Karnataka should share this distress through proportionate relief in the form of grain and clothing. Obviously, Karnataka will neither be willing nor capable of providing this solace. So the Centre or the Supreme Court should step in and exercise the extraordinary powers they are vested with.

The details need to be worked out. But a broad outline could be indicated. Based on the assessment of distress, the quantum of relief-food and clothing for the farmers and agricultural labour could be worked out. This can be provided in kind from the FCI godowns (food) and Khadi Board outlets (clothing). State machinery and NGOs can be utilised to speedily disburse the relief before the misery of the suffering people breaches tolerable limits.

The cost of the entire relief package should be billed to Karnataka Government and they should be asked to pay up within a specified time frame. If they fail to do so, the Centre should ask the Reserve Bank of India to make good the payment to the FCI and Khadi Board and credit the same to Karnataka’s account. The Government should submit this proposal to the Supreme Court and obtain its approval in the next hearing.

This ‘‘distress sharing’’ formula could be a win-win situation. First, it will establish the principle of ‘‘defaulter pays’’ in line with the concept of ‘‘polluter pays’’ in environmental management. Second, the farmers and labourers of the delta will get immediate measurable and usable relief. Third, the vast stocks of FCI and Khadi Board would have found a fruitful and humane outlet. Finally, Karnataka would have learnt its lesson that wanton defiance does not pay—instead the government has to pay for it!

(The writer is a former IAS officer)