| Published on 23-04-2007 In National |
| Viewed 1211 times |
|
Written by
S. Murari |
"Let's not fight among ourselves over Cauvery as it will be music to Karnataka's ears", Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi appealed to Leader of the Opposition O Panneerselvam in the State Assembly the other day. The bone of contention was whether Tamil Nadu should approach the Supreme Court first or the tribunal.
Mr Panneerselvam, echoing his leader J Jayalalitha's view, says the State should explore all options—file a petition before the tribunal seeking improvements on the final award, ask the Centre to gazette the award so that it will come into effect immediately and consequently delta farmers will not face any uncertainty, and simultaneously go to the Supreme Court against the award itself. In short, Ms Jayalalitha wants to have the cake and eat it too.
The point is Mr Karunanidhi has, since the tribunal's final award on Feb 5 put the AIADMK and the DMK on a collision course, answered all these points. He reiterated the legal position when Ms Jayalalitha went on a one-day fast in March. He then said that under Sec 5 (3) of the Inter-State River Waters Dispute Act, it is open to concerned States as well as the Centre to seek clarifications or explanations from the tribunal within three months of the award.
Therefore, the Centre will have to wait till May 5 when the time given for such petitions will expire. It can notify the award only if no State approaches the tribunal by then. The Chief Minister has quoted senior Supreme Court lawyers K Parasaran and P P Rao in this regard.
Mr Parasaran has said: " It may not be appropriate for any State Government at this stage to request the Central Government to issue a notification under Sec 6 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act before the three months time expires. Nor is the Central Government under any duty to forthwith notify the decision of the tribunal before a time for a reference under Sec 5(3) expires".
Endorsing this view, Mr Rao has said:" The Central Government has to necessarily wait till May 4, 2007, to see whether any application is made before the tribunal by any government under Sec 5(3)". In case any government moved the tribunal before May 5, it would have to wait till the tribunal gave its finding and reported to it.
Referring to her contention that he himself had pressed for the immediate notification of the tribunal's interim order of 1991, Mr Karunanidhi has said he did so as the order was not adverse to Tamil Nadu. The then AIADMK Government was also not dissatisfied with it. So, there was no need to seek clarifications. However, an all-party meeting had now decided that the final award had several factors adverse to the State and it should, therefore, file a clarificatory petition. When both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka had decided to seek clarifications, notifying the award at this stage, as demanded by Ms Jayalalitha, would make it final, he has rightly pointed out.
Dale Carnagie used to say," never argue, for a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". I was reminded of this when Mr Panneerselvam stuck to his party's illogical position at the April 15 all-party meeting called by Mr Karunanidhi to seek views on finalising the petition to be filed before the tribunal.
Mr Panneerselvam claims that the decision to go for a review before the tribunal was thrust on the AIADMK and its opinion to file a petition before the apex court was brushed aside.
Mr Karunanidhi contends that it is precisely to accommodate the AIADMK's viewpoint that the final resolution was modified to include the option of going to the apex court, " if necessary".
Therein lies the catch. The AIADMK Member of Parliament and advocate N Jothi contends there is no bar on going to the Supreme Court now and cites the Karnataka precedence.
The point that is glossed over is that the petition has been filed by Bangalore Cauvery Water Users Association, contending that the tribunal has allotted only around eight thousand million cubic feet (tmc ft) of water for the city for its drinking water needs while Chennai is getting 15 t.m.c. ft of Krishna water under the Telugu Ganga scheme.
Cauvery Delta Farmers Association general secretary N Ranganathan, whose petition before the apex court in the 1970s paved the way for the constitution of the tribunal, as acknowledged by Mr Karunanidhi himself, says on the basis of his own experience that only stake holders, that is the affected States, can go to court under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956. His own petition gained life only after the Tamil Nadu Government filed a petition along the same lines in 1990 in the apex court.
The Chief Minister feels that Karnataka is testing the waters by letting a little-known organisation to go to the apex court as the tribunal's award, once notified, is like a Supreme Court decree against which there can be no appeal. Following Karnataka's route will be politically risky for Tamil Nadu as the apex court may dismiss its case on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
Mr Ranganathan, who attended the two all-party meetings called by Mr Karunanidhi since the final award, is of the view that political rivalry between the AIADMK and the DMK even on this issue will only affect the interests of the State and its farmers.
Ms Jayalalitha is unlikely to listen. She made Mr Vazhapadi Ramamurthi resign as Union Minister to coerce the Centre to notify the interim award. Finally the award was notified, not because of Mr Vazhapadi's gimmicks, but because the apex court upheld the constitution of the tribunal and its interim order. She went on a much-publicised fast in 2003, a year of great distress, only to wrest an assurance from the then Union Water Resources Minister V C Shukla, to get an officials' committee set up to oversee the implementation of the interim order. That remained only on paper.
She opposed, with some justification, the Cauvery River Authority with Prime Minister as Chairman, as a toothless body as national parties have stakes in Karnataka and so will lack political will to act impartially. But her suggestion for an officials' committee to take control of reservoirs of recalcitrant States is not in the realm of practical politics.
Mr Karunanidhi prefers to hasten slowly and make the best of a bad bargain as it has taken decades to get a final award on the issue. This is the right course as the tribunal itself has tried for equitable distribution of water from what is essentially a deficit river.
Ms Jayalalitha should have learnt by now, though she may loathe to admit it publicly, that stridency does not pay on issues like this. Karnataka too will realise it soon.
|
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
