By the rivers of Telangana

The creation of Telangana State, as and when it happens, is set to add to the list of potentially volatile inter-state river water disputes.

Already, the sharing of Krishna waters in particular is a bone of contention between existing states — Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Throwing a newly created Telangana into this will make it even more complex.

Official circles reportedly believe this challenge can be addressed by creating an institution that includes representatives of the concerned States. But if the experience of the Cauvery dispute is any guide, a centralised mechanism, instead of a decentralised river basin authority, may only add to the difficulty of finding an acceptable solution.

The century-old Cauvery dispute has taught us many lessons. Important among these is the fact that while the conflict may be played out over the sharing of water, deciding the principles for such sharing can take us into a territory that goes well beyond hydrology. In the Krishna basin, as in the Cauvery, diverting the water for irrigation has been easier in the delta region. Thus the delta regions had developed irrigation centuries earlier than the other parts of the basin. When the upper riparian regions developed the ability to tap this water through large dams, it prompted a basic question on the sharing of river waters: was it right to pursue an equitable distribution across all parts of the basin, or should the upper riparian regions first protect the access to water that the delta regions had had for centuries?

There are no easy answers, even in the abstract. And in the hard-nosed reality of water politics, it gets even more difficult. It must be remembered that any negotiations between a Telangana state and Seemandhra has the potential to tap divisions that go back centuries. Telangana was a part of the Nizam’s Dominions, while delta regions formed a part of the Madras Presidency. And the relationship between the Presidency regions and the native states was not without its points of tension. Add the long battle for the creation of Telangana to new disputes over Hyderabad, and it may be much too optimistic to assume the environment of give-and-take needed for an amicable solution on water sharing.

Any effort by a centralised mechanism to impose a solution would face resistance at three levels. In an era of coalition politics alongside a strong emphasis on regionalism, getting representatives of State governments to agree would itself be a Herculean task.

Even if State representatives do believe they have arrived at a fair solution, it will almost certainly be resisted by opposition parties within the states. This resistance is bound to be intense in a newly created Telangana as well as a newly demarcated Seemandhra. And even if the entire political establishment accepts a solution, there is still the challenge of selling it to farmers and other stakeholders in the river basin.

It may be more rewarding to shift the focus from a centralised authority to one that is much more sensitive to the concerns of those who are affected. Farmers in the basin are impacted not just by the sharing of waters between states, but also the distribution within states.

They are also likely to be more sensitive to issues that affect the demand for water, especially the efficiency of utilisation. This would increase the importance of measures that are applied to the basin as a whole. A sharper focus on the entire basin would also ensure that the sharing of waters is not easily linked to other points of tension in inter-state relations.

Beyond the task of reducing interstate conflicts, river basin authorities would also meet a more important longer-term requirement.

The latest Census confirms that there is a large-scale shift away from agriculture in rural areas, including river basins. This shift is not matched by a corresponding movement to urban areas.

There is thus a need to find alternative development opportunities for those in the river basins who seek employment outside agriculture. Since such opportunities are likely to be more visible locally, a local authority would better execute the task of managing a river basin in transition.

There are hence a number of challenges arising in river basins that need to be addressed urgently. These go far beyond the technical issues of measuring water and deciding how much each state should get. There is also the question of the most efficient use of the scarce resource, water. In addition, there are the challenges of river basins coming to terms with less water-intensive economic opportunities.

As river basins step into this uncharted territory, they would need the support of authorities that mix local democratic representation with hydrological and non-hydrological technical expertise. The official response to river water disputes that the creation of Telangana will bring will tell us whether we are ready as a nation to tap the opportunities of democratic decentralised river basin authorities --- or whether we must resign ourselves to more years of potentially violent interstate water conflicts.