LAST PAGE
NAIDU BEHAVIOUR
UNACCEPTABLE
Nothing was more provocative than the attempt by ex-chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s much publicised ‘Yatra’ against the Babhli Project in Maharashtra’s Nanded district bordering Andhra Pradesh. That ‘Yatra’ was uncalled for and wholly unnecessary. According to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956, when a water dispute arises among two or more state governments, the Central Government receives a request under Section 3 of the Act from any of the basic States to resolve it. No State Government can take the matter in its own hands to create trouble. In accordance with the ISRWD Act, the Union Government is required to refer a dispute to a Tribunal but only after it is satisfied that the dispute cannot be settled through mutual negotiations between the states concerned. That is as it should be. Thus, disputes in the past relating to the Cauvery (Kaveri) waters between Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Krishna waters between Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were referred to Tribunals for adjudication in 1990 and 2004. There have been other water disputes in the past as between Punjab and Haryana (weren’t they once one state?) on waters of the rivers Ravi- Beas and Tribunals have been set up. There is no reason why Andhra Pradesh should not have similarly asked the Union Government to mediate between itself and Maharashtra in regard to the Babhli waters. But this is a matter between the governments of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh – NOT between Maharashtra and the party in opposition in Andhra Pradesh. Chandrababu Naidu should have known that. If he wanted to express his displeasure in the matter of the Babhli waters, he should have discussed it first with his own government and its Chief Minister Rosiah. His quarrel should be with his own state government and not with the government of his neighbouring State. In the circumstances he has, by leading a group of 74 Telugu Desam Party (TDP) MLAs towards the Babhli Project showed total lack of good manners, respect for protocol and decency as well. He stands self-condemned. But what are his objections? The point has been made that the Bhabli Project falls within the “foreshore”- the water storage area- of the Sriramsagar Project in Andhra Project. One should not- unless duly agreed upon - set up a project in one state lying within a project zone of another. Andhra Pradesh contends that the barrage will utilise water belonging to the Sriramsagar Dam. The dam was designed to hold 122 tmc of water, but the volume has apparently come down to as low a figure as 70 tmc, due to silting. According to available information the dam has never fully served the total area it was meant to help irrigate in the typically dry districts of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Warangal and Nalanda. Understandably the Telangana people are disturbed. Chandrababu Naidu may want to exploit the Babhli issue for strengthening his party position in Telengana but organising a ‘Yatra’ is not the best way of achieving that end. By doing so he has thereby only done needless damage to Andhra Pradesh- Maharashtra good relations. He needs to be strongly ticked off. He may have a case-that is not under dispute- but he must discuss it with his own government first to find out what is going on behind his back. That is statesmanship of which there is obviously a shortfall in Hyderabad, especially in opposition circles.
Chandrababu Naidu was Chief Minister of his state when Maharshtra conceived the Babhli Barrage in 2002-2003 to supply drinking water to 58 villages and irrigate 8,000 hectares of land. Work on it had begun in September 2004, months after the Congress government led by the late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy commenced its first term. It should have been Dr Reddy who should have first raised his doubts about the Babhli Barrage and its possible impact on Telangana. What prevented him from doing so? Or was there a tacit understanding between him and the Maharashtra Government? The Supreme Court had passed an interim order preventing Maharashtra from installing gates on the barrage, indicating that the matter had not received the consent from both parties. The Supreme Court had taken cognisance of it in 2006. Maharashtra has been apparently arguing that the Bhabli barrage would not withhold large quantities of water and anyway, the Sriramsagar dam is a much larger irrigation project and would not be affected by the barrage upstream. That is a poor argument and such a one that would hardly convince a lower riparian state. What all this reminds us is that projects in one state have to be conceived and executed, taking into consideration the well-being of neighbouring states - and not arbitrarily. What all our States must remember is that India is one and indivisible and states were constituted for administrative purposes. Our rivers run through several states and no one state can act arbitrarily in utter disregard to the people of other states. What has made matter worse in India is that our states have a linguistic identity and we have ceased to think of ourselves Indians first and last. We have now come to a stage when we think of ourselves as first Kannadigas or Maharashtrians, or Gujaratis or Tamilians, Bengalis or Oriyas and take linguistic offence if one linguistic state is perceived as taking advantage of water or other resources at the cost of the other. Herein lies great danger. In cases such as water dispute, wisdom lies in states involved getting together and coming to an acceptable solution of the differences under study. If that is not possible, to appeal to the Centre on which it is incumbent to appoint a Tribunal. All this is time consuming, but, in the end, most desirable. The law should be allowed to take its course. Under no circumstances should the people of any state, on their own, take recourse to lawlessness. Which is exactly what Chandrababu Naidu had in mind. He was, through his ‘Yatra’ trying to project himself as the friend of the people. He has shown himself as an enemy of peace and a disturber of inter-state good will. This must be made clear to him by those concerned. Linguistic states are increasingly being seen as violators of not only peace but law and order. Perhaps the time has come to break up the current system of administration and go in for a unitary form of government. Indians are for India and India is for Indians and natural resources are for all and not for any one linguistic or ethnic community. Linguistic states were formed with the best of intentions. Perhaps the time has come to form states not on linguistic lines but on other considerations.
Nothing was more provocative than the attempt by ex-chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s much publicised ‘Yatra’ against the Babhli Project in Maharashtra’s Nanded district bordering Andhra Pradesh. That ‘Yatra’ was uncalled for and wholly unnecessary. According to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956, when a water dispute arises among two or more state governments, the Central Government receives a request under Section 3 of the Act from any of the basic States to resolve it. No State Government can take the matter in its own hands to create trouble. In accordance with the ISRWD Act, the Union Government is required to refer a dispute to a Tribunal but only after it is satisfied that the dispute cannot be settled through mutual negotiations between the states concerned. That is as it should be. Thus, disputes in the past relating to the Cauvery (Kaveri) waters between Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Krishna waters between Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were referred to Tribunals for adjudication in 1990 and 2004. There have been other water disputes in the past as between Punjab and Haryana (weren’t they once one state?) on waters of the rivers Ravi- Beas and Tribunals have been set up. There is no reason why Andhra Pradesh should not have similarly asked the Union Government to mediate between itself and Maharashtra in regard to the Babhli waters. But this is a matter between the governments of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh – NOT between Maharashtra and the party in opposition in Andhra Pradesh. Chandrababu Naidu should have known that. If he wanted to express his displeasure in the matter of the Babhli waters, he should have discussed it first with his own government and its Chief Minister Rosiah. His quarrel should be with his own state government and not with the government of his neighbouring State. In the circumstances he has, by leading a group of 74 Telugu Desam Party (TDP) MLAs towards the Babhli Project showed total lack of good manners, respect for protocol and decency as well. He stands self-condemned. But what are his objections? The point has been made that the Bhabli Project falls within the “foreshore”- the water storage area- of the Sriramsagar Project in Andhra Project. One should not- unless duly agreed upon - set up a project in one state lying within a project zone of another. Andhra Pradesh contends that the barrage will utilise water belonging to the Sriramsagar Dam. The dam was designed to hold 122 tmc of water, but the volume has apparently come down to as low a figure as 70 tmc, due to silting. According to available information the dam has never fully served the total area it was meant to help irrigate in the typically dry districts of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Warangal and Nalanda. Understandably the Telangana people are disturbed. Chandrababu Naidu may want to exploit the Babhli issue for strengthening his party position in Telengana but organising a ‘Yatra’ is not the best way of achieving that end. By doing so he has thereby only done needless damage to Andhra Pradesh- Maharashtra good relations. He needs to be strongly ticked off. He may have a case-that is not under dispute- but he must discuss it with his own government first to find out what is going on behind his back. That is statesmanship of which there is obviously a shortfall in Hyderabad, especially in opposition circles.
Chandrababu Naidu was Chief Minister of his state when Maharshtra conceived the Babhli Barrage in 2002-2003 to supply drinking water to 58 villages and irrigate 8,000 hectares of land. Work on it had begun in September 2004, months after the Congress government led by the late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy commenced its first term. It should have been Dr Reddy who should have first raised his doubts about the Babhli Barrage and its possible impact on Telangana. What prevented him from doing so? Or was there a tacit understanding between him and the Maharashtra Government? The Supreme Court had passed an interim order preventing Maharashtra from installing gates on the barrage, indicating that the matter had not received the consent from both parties. The Supreme Court had taken cognisance of it in 2006. Maharashtra has been apparently arguing that the Bhabli barrage would not withhold large quantities of water and anyway, the Sriramsagar dam is a much larger irrigation project and would not be affected by the barrage upstream. That is a poor argument and such a one that would hardly convince a lower riparian state. What all this reminds us is that projects in one state have to be conceived and executed, taking into consideration the well-being of neighbouring states - and not arbitrarily. What all our States must remember is that India is one and indivisible and states were constituted for administrative purposes. Our rivers run through several states and no one state can act arbitrarily in utter disregard to the people of other states. What has made matter worse in India is that our states have a linguistic identity and we have ceased to think of ourselves Indians first and last. We have now come to a stage when we think of ourselves as first Kannadigas or Maharashtrians, or Gujaratis or Tamilians, Bengalis or Oriyas and take linguistic offence if one linguistic state is perceived as taking advantage of water or other resources at the cost of the other. Herein lies great danger. In cases such as water dispute, wisdom lies in states involved getting together and coming to an acceptable solution of the differences under study. If that is not possible, to appeal to the Centre on which it is incumbent to appoint a Tribunal. All this is time consuming, but, in the end, most desirable. The law should be allowed to take its course. Under no circumstances should the people of any state, on their own, take recourse to lawlessness. Which is exactly what Chandrababu Naidu had in mind. He was, through his ‘Yatra’ trying to project himself as the friend of the people. He has shown himself as an enemy of peace and a disturber of inter-state good will. This must be made clear to him by those concerned. Linguistic states are increasingly being seen as violators of not only peace but law and order. Perhaps the time has come to break up the current system of administration and go in for a unitary form of government. Indians are for India and India is for Indians and natural resources are for all and not for any one linguistic or ethnic community. Linguistic states were formed with the best of intentions. Perhaps the time has come to form states not on linguistic lines but on other considerations.
UNACCEPTABLE
Nothing was more provocative than the attempt by ex-chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s much publicised ‘Yatra’ against the Babhli Project in Maharashtra’s Nanded district bordering Andhra Pradesh. That ‘Yatra’ was uncalled for and wholly unnecessary. According to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956, when a water dispute arises among two or more state governments, the Central Government receives a request under Section 3 of the Act from any of the basic States to resolve it. No State Government can take the matter in its own hands to create trouble. In accordance with the ISRWD Act, the Union Government is required to refer a dispute to a Tribunal but only after it is satisfied that the dispute cannot be settled through mutual negotiations between the states concerned. That is as it should be. Thus, disputes in the past relating to the Cauvery (Kaveri) waters between Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Krishna waters between Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were referred to Tribunals for adjudication in 1990 and 2004. There have been other water disputes in the past as between Punjab and Haryana (weren’t they once one state?) on waters of the rivers Ravi- Beas and Tribunals have been set up. There is no reason why Andhra Pradesh should not have similarly asked the Union Government to mediate between itself and Maharashtra in regard to the Babhli waters. But this is a matter between the governments of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh – NOT between Maharashtra and the party in opposition in Andhra Pradesh. Chandrababu Naidu should have known that. If he wanted to express his displeasure in the matter of the Babhli waters, he should have discussed it first with his own government and its Chief Minister Rosiah. His quarrel should be with his own state government and not with the government of his neighbouring State. In the circumstances he has, by leading a group of 74 Telugu Desam Party (TDP) MLAs towards the Babhli Project showed total lack of good manners, respect for protocol and decency as well. He stands self-condemned. But what are his objections? The point has been made that the Bhabli Project falls within the “foreshore”- the water storage area- of the Sriramsagar Project in Andhra Project. One should not- unless duly agreed upon - set up a project in one state lying within a project zone of another. Andhra Pradesh contends that the barrage will utilise water belonging to the Sriramsagar Dam. The dam was designed to hold 122 tmc of water, but the volume has apparently come down to as low a figure as 70 tmc, due to silting. According to available information the dam has never fully served the total area it was meant to help irrigate in the typically dry districts of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Warangal and Nalanda. Understandably the Telangana people are disturbed. Chandrababu Naidu may want to exploit the Babhli issue for strengthening his party position in Telengana but organising a ‘Yatra’ is not the best way of achieving that end. By doing so he has thereby only done needless damage to Andhra Pradesh- Maharashtra good relations. He needs to be strongly ticked off. He may have a case-that is not under dispute- but he must discuss it with his own government first to find out what is going on behind his back. That is statesmanship of which there is obviously a shortfall in Hyderabad, especially in opposition circles.
Chandrababu Naidu was Chief Minister of his state when Maharshtra conceived the Babhli Barrage in 2002-2003 to supply drinking water to 58 villages and irrigate 8,000 hectares of land. Work on it had begun in September 2004, months after the Congress government led by the late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy commenced its first term. It should have been Dr Reddy who should have first raised his doubts about the Babhli Barrage and its possible impact on Telangana. What prevented him from doing so? Or was there a tacit understanding between him and the Maharashtra Government? The Supreme Court had passed an interim order preventing Maharashtra from installing gates on the barrage, indicating that the matter had not received the consent from both parties. The Supreme Court had taken cognisance of it in 2006. Maharashtra has been apparently arguing that the Bhabli barrage would not withhold large quantities of water and anyway, the Sriramsagar dam is a much larger irrigation project and would not be affected by the barrage upstream. That is a poor argument and such a one that would hardly convince a lower riparian state. What all this reminds us is that projects in one state have to be conceived and executed, taking into consideration the well-being of neighbouring states - and not arbitrarily. What all our States must remember is that India is one and indivisible and states were constituted for administrative purposes. Our rivers run through several states and no one state can act arbitrarily in utter disregard to the people of other states. What has made matter worse in India is that our states have a linguistic identity and we have ceased to think of ourselves Indians first and last. We have now come to a stage when we think of ourselves as first Kannadigas or Maharashtrians, or Gujaratis or Tamilians, Bengalis or Oriyas and take linguistic offence if one linguistic state is perceived as taking advantage of water or other resources at the cost of the other. Herein lies great danger. In cases such as water dispute, wisdom lies in states involved getting together and coming to an acceptable solution of the differences under study. If that is not possible, to appeal to the Centre on which it is incumbent to appoint a Tribunal. All this is time consuming, but, in the end, most desirable. The law should be allowed to take its course. Under no circumstances should the people of any state, on their own, take recourse to lawlessness. Which is exactly what Chandrababu Naidu had in mind. He was, through his ‘Yatra’ trying to project himself as the friend of the people. He has shown himself as an enemy of peace and a disturber of inter-state good will. This must be made clear to him by those concerned. Linguistic states are increasingly being seen as violators of not only peace but law and order. Perhaps the time has come to break up the current system of administration and go in for a unitary form of government. Indians are for India and India is for Indians and natural resources are for all and not for any one linguistic or ethnic community. Linguistic states were formed with the best of intentions. Perhaps the time has come to form states not on linguistic lines but on other considerations.
Nothing was more provocative than the attempt by ex-chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s much publicised ‘Yatra’ against the Babhli Project in Maharashtra’s Nanded district bordering Andhra Pradesh. That ‘Yatra’ was uncalled for and wholly unnecessary. According to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act 1956, when a water dispute arises among two or more state governments, the Central Government receives a request under Section 3 of the Act from any of the basic States to resolve it. No State Government can take the matter in its own hands to create trouble. In accordance with the ISRWD Act, the Union Government is required to refer a dispute to a Tribunal but only after it is satisfied that the dispute cannot be settled through mutual negotiations between the states concerned. That is as it should be. Thus, disputes in the past relating to the Cauvery (Kaveri) waters between Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Krishna waters between Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were referred to Tribunals for adjudication in 1990 and 2004. There have been other water disputes in the past as between Punjab and Haryana (weren’t they once one state?) on waters of the rivers Ravi- Beas and Tribunals have been set up. There is no reason why Andhra Pradesh should not have similarly asked the Union Government to mediate between itself and Maharashtra in regard to the Babhli waters. But this is a matter between the governments of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh – NOT between Maharashtra and the party in opposition in Andhra Pradesh. Chandrababu Naidu should have known that. If he wanted to express his displeasure in the matter of the Babhli waters, he should have discussed it first with his own government and its Chief Minister Rosiah. His quarrel should be with his own state government and not with the government of his neighbouring State. In the circumstances he has, by leading a group of 74 Telugu Desam Party (TDP) MLAs towards the Babhli Project showed total lack of good manners, respect for protocol and decency as well. He stands self-condemned. But what are his objections? The point has been made that the Bhabli Project falls within the “foreshore”- the water storage area- of the Sriramsagar Project in Andhra Project. One should not- unless duly agreed upon - set up a project in one state lying within a project zone of another. Andhra Pradesh contends that the barrage will utilise water belonging to the Sriramsagar Dam. The dam was designed to hold 122 tmc of water, but the volume has apparently come down to as low a figure as 70 tmc, due to silting. According to available information the dam has never fully served the total area it was meant to help irrigate in the typically dry districts of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Warangal and Nalanda. Understandably the Telangana people are disturbed. Chandrababu Naidu may want to exploit the Babhli issue for strengthening his party position in Telengana but organising a ‘Yatra’ is not the best way of achieving that end. By doing so he has thereby only done needless damage to Andhra Pradesh- Maharashtra good relations. He needs to be strongly ticked off. He may have a case-that is not under dispute- but he must discuss it with his own government first to find out what is going on behind his back. That is statesmanship of which there is obviously a shortfall in Hyderabad, especially in opposition circles.
Chandrababu Naidu was Chief Minister of his state when Maharshtra conceived the Babhli Barrage in 2002-2003 to supply drinking water to 58 villages and irrigate 8,000 hectares of land. Work on it had begun in September 2004, months after the Congress government led by the late Dr. Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy commenced its first term. It should have been Dr Reddy who should have first raised his doubts about the Babhli Barrage and its possible impact on Telangana. What prevented him from doing so? Or was there a tacit understanding between him and the Maharashtra Government? The Supreme Court had passed an interim order preventing Maharashtra from installing gates on the barrage, indicating that the matter had not received the consent from both parties. The Supreme Court had taken cognisance of it in 2006. Maharashtra has been apparently arguing that the Bhabli barrage would not withhold large quantities of water and anyway, the Sriramsagar dam is a much larger irrigation project and would not be affected by the barrage upstream. That is a poor argument and such a one that would hardly convince a lower riparian state. What all this reminds us is that projects in one state have to be conceived and executed, taking into consideration the well-being of neighbouring states - and not arbitrarily. What all our States must remember is that India is one and indivisible and states were constituted for administrative purposes. Our rivers run through several states and no one state can act arbitrarily in utter disregard to the people of other states. What has made matter worse in India is that our states have a linguistic identity and we have ceased to think of ourselves Indians first and last. We have now come to a stage when we think of ourselves as first Kannadigas or Maharashtrians, or Gujaratis or Tamilians, Bengalis or Oriyas and take linguistic offence if one linguistic state is perceived as taking advantage of water or other resources at the cost of the other. Herein lies great danger. In cases such as water dispute, wisdom lies in states involved getting together and coming to an acceptable solution of the differences under study. If that is not possible, to appeal to the Centre on which it is incumbent to appoint a Tribunal. All this is time consuming, but, in the end, most desirable. The law should be allowed to take its course. Under no circumstances should the people of any state, on their own, take recourse to lawlessness. Which is exactly what Chandrababu Naidu had in mind. He was, through his ‘Yatra’ trying to project himself as the friend of the people. He has shown himself as an enemy of peace and a disturber of inter-state good will. This must be made clear to him by those concerned. Linguistic states are increasingly being seen as violators of not only peace but law and order. Perhaps the time has come to break up the current system of administration and go in for a unitary form of government. Indians are for India and India is for Indians and natural resources are for all and not for any one linguistic or ethnic community. Linguistic states were formed with the best of intentions. Perhaps the time has come to form states not on linguistic lines but on other considerations.
Comments