Opinion Revisiting Cauvery

According to Amartya Sen,the aim of development should be to enhance substantive freedoms. This differs from previous theories of development,which tended to focus on economic growth,income or specific development outcomes such as education or other indicators. How are we to reconcile this broader theory,which suggests the only thing that matters is the freedom of every person,with the means to achieve those freedoms using the tools we have — institutions,strategies and resources? Intuitively,an attempt to apply a capability perspective to an emotive issue like a river dispute seems impossible.

A freedom perspective requires us to look beyond the immediate concerns in a river dispute — not to think of water quantities,but to consider what freedoms we can enhance by resolving the dispute. In practice,a freedom perspective can help us think about the citizen in a number of perspectives. First,even in a dispute between states,the parties ultimately affected are individual citizens. Second,the ways in which the impact of different water allocation scenarios on individual citizens can be assessed. Third,how can we create institutions that enable citizens to participate in the decision-making process? Fourth,whether citizens are able to participate in deliberations on points of disagreement,reach a consensus if possible or accept decisions where consensus is impossible. In a functioning democracy such as India,some of these institutions are supposed to exist. In reality,matters are complicated by the fact that there will be conflict between the vested interests of politicians and political parties and the supposedly disinterested entity that is the state government.

The ISWD Act recognises only state governments as the representatives of claims. However,we do not have institutions that can translate an individual claim to water to the aggregate claim of a state. One approach is to specify that every citizen is entitled to the human right to drinking water. This can help address issues concerning access to safe drinking water. However,it does not help in allocations for various productive uses of water,such as agriculture,industry and trade. At present,this is governed by property rights to land on the one hand and market exchange on the other. Even if we set up alternate institutions,we would still need ways of ensuring the accountability of water governance institutions. In India,“formal” water governance institutions remain distant from the citizens concerned. (In principal-agent theory,this is the problem of several principals and asymmetry of information making it difficult to monitor the actions of the agent). Although citizens can seek information under RTI,it is a small remedy compared to the power asymmetry between an individual and a water governance institution protected by the state government. If the ISWD Act were written today,the drafters of the law would probably provide for multiple forms of stakeholder participation. Perhaps the act should be re-examined and updated,but many experts feel that might result in something more complex and less transparent.

Critics of the freedom perspective argue that it is not possible to justify the farmers’ freedom to grow water-intensive crops if the freedom of others is put at risk. This is a narrow interpretation of the capability approach. We need to define freedoms through deliberative public discussions. We can anticipate issues such as self-interest,greed,corruption and difficulty to monitor actions. Accordingly,we can develop the necessary safeguards and institutional remedies.

Ramaswamy Iyer,a scholar in the field of water resources management,recently wrote an appeal to various parties on the Cauvery dispute. While I agree with the substance of his appeal,I differ on one point: Iyer appeals to the state governments to desist from seeking special leave petitions before the Supreme Court. This is to ask state governments to stop using SLPs as a populist tool to stir up support. However,as a deliberative democracy,we should not only anticipate such legal challenges,political rallies and protests,but be prepared to welcome them so long as the protests do not turn violent. One has to hope that,over a period of time,such processes will make democratic institutions stronger.

Anand,head of the Bradford Centre for International Development,University of Bradford,UK,is the author of ‘Scarcity,Entitlements and the Economics of Water Supply in Developing Countries’