Notes: Sample Question for IRWD including recommendations | Political Science & International Relations: Mains Optional - UPSC PDF Download

 Page 1


River water disputes in India exemplify the major
hostilities that posit a humongous federal challenge to
river water governance in India. Discuss
• Ithasbeenwidelyspeculatedthatnationswillgotowarforthecontroloverwater.
But, contrary to this apprehension, it has been the subnational disputes that are
farmoreomnipresent.
• CWMI Report 2020 points how India is experiencing a very significant water
challenge, approximately 820 million people of India - living in twelve river basins
acrossthecountryhavepercapitawateravailabilityclosetoorlowerthan1000m3
–theofficialthresholdforwaterscarcityasperthe FalkenmarkIndex.
• CauveryconflictbetweenKarnatakaand TamilNadu,Ravi-BeasRiver waterdispute
andsharingofKrishnawaters,tonameafew,haveexemplifiedmajorhostilities.
• Water is a state subject but the “regulation and development of inter-state rivers
and river valleys… in the public interest" is on the Union list. Article 262 provides
foradjudicationofriverdisputes,keepingSupremeCourtoutofitspurview.
Page 2


River water disputes in India exemplify the major
hostilities that posit a humongous federal challenge to
river water governance in India. Discuss
• Ithasbeenwidelyspeculatedthatnationswillgotowarforthecontroloverwater.
But, contrary to this apprehension, it has been the subnational disputes that are
farmoreomnipresent.
• CWMI Report 2020 points how India is experiencing a very significant water
challenge, approximately 820 million people of India - living in twelve river basins
acrossthecountryhavepercapitawateravailabilityclosetoorlowerthan1000m3
–theofficialthresholdforwaterscarcityasperthe FalkenmarkIndex.
• CauveryconflictbetweenKarnatakaand TamilNadu,Ravi-BeasRiver waterdispute
andsharingofKrishnawaters,tonameafew,haveexemplifiedmajorhostilities.
• Water is a state subject but the “regulation and development of inter-state rivers
and river valleys… in the public interest" is on the Union list. Article 262 provides
foradjudicationofriverdisputes,keepingSupremeCourtoutofitspurview.
• However, therehas been the following lacunaeinthe existing system:
• Efficiency and effectiveness: Only four out of nine tribunals, set up under 1956 Act, could
givetheirawards
• Protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution: Sometimes, the Centre
takes years to decide whether a matter needs to be heard by a tribunal in the first place—
for example, the Godavari and Krishna disputes started around 1956 but the matter was
referred to a tribunal only in 1969. After the tribunal has been formed, it again takes many
yearstopronounceitsaward—ittooknineyearsfromreferenceinthecaseoftheNarmada
tribunal
• Opacityintheinstitutionalframeworkandguidelinesthatdefinetheseproceedings: Alan
Richards and Nirvikar Singh note in their paper on India’s inter-state water disputes,“There
are too many options, and there is too much discretion at too many stages of the process".
This is partly because of procedural complexities involving multiple stakeholders across
governmentsandagencies
• Ensuring compliance: Ambivalent distribution of power between the Centre and the states
as far as management of interstate rivers are concerned, leading to a federal jurisdictional
ambiguity. State governments have sometimes rejected tribunal awards. For example, the
PunjabgovernmentplayedtruantinthecaseoftheRavi-Beastribunal
• Thus, institutional lacunae, lack of political will, inadequate appreciation of the ecological
and economic costs of such protracted conflict have constantly evaded a sustainable and
holisticapproachtothisissuebasedonfederalcooperation.
Page 3


River water disputes in India exemplify the major
hostilities that posit a humongous federal challenge to
river water governance in India. Discuss
• Ithasbeenwidelyspeculatedthatnationswillgotowarforthecontroloverwater.
But, contrary to this apprehension, it has been the subnational disputes that are
farmoreomnipresent.
• CWMI Report 2020 points how India is experiencing a very significant water
challenge, approximately 820 million people of India - living in twelve river basins
acrossthecountryhavepercapitawateravailabilityclosetoorlowerthan1000m3
–theofficialthresholdforwaterscarcityasperthe FalkenmarkIndex.
• CauveryconflictbetweenKarnatakaand TamilNadu,Ravi-BeasRiver waterdispute
andsharingofKrishnawaters,tonameafew,haveexemplifiedmajorhostilities.
• Water is a state subject but the “regulation and development of inter-state rivers
and river valleys… in the public interest" is on the Union list. Article 262 provides
foradjudicationofriverdisputes,keepingSupremeCourtoutofitspurview.
• However, therehas been the following lacunaeinthe existing system:
• Efficiency and effectiveness: Only four out of nine tribunals, set up under 1956 Act, could
givetheirawards
• Protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution: Sometimes, the Centre
takes years to decide whether a matter needs to be heard by a tribunal in the first place—
for example, the Godavari and Krishna disputes started around 1956 but the matter was
referred to a tribunal only in 1969. After the tribunal has been formed, it again takes many
yearstopronounceitsaward—ittooknineyearsfromreferenceinthecaseoftheNarmada
tribunal
• Opacityintheinstitutionalframeworkandguidelinesthatdefinetheseproceedings: Alan
Richards and Nirvikar Singh note in their paper on India’s inter-state water disputes,“There
are too many options, and there is too much discretion at too many stages of the process".
This is partly because of procedural complexities involving multiple stakeholders across
governmentsandagencies
• Ensuring compliance: Ambivalent distribution of power between the Centre and the states
as far as management of interstate rivers are concerned, leading to a federal jurisdictional
ambiguity. State governments have sometimes rejected tribunal awards. For example, the
PunjabgovernmentplayedtruantinthecaseoftheRavi-Beastribunal
• Thus, institutional lacunae, lack of political will, inadequate appreciation of the ecological
and economic costs of such protracted conflict have constantly evaded a sustainable and
holisticapproachtothisissuebasedonfederalcooperation.
• Recommendations
• Consolidated dispute resolution- NCRWC recommended a comprehensive central
legislation, after consultation with states, to define the constitution and jurisdiction of
riverboardstoregulate,developandcontrolallinterstaterivers.
• TheSarkariaCommission recommendedthatonce a statemakes anapplicationunderthe
Interstate River Water Disputes Act, the Centre must, within a year, appoint a tribunal. It
proposed that the Centre should also have suo motu power to appoint a tribunal if it is
satisfiedthatadisputeexists.
• Centre’s proposal to set up, alongside a single time bound tribunal as per IRWD
(amendment) bill 2019, an agency that will collect and process data on river waters has
potential.
• The Punchhi commission recommended a multidisciplinary tribunal with experts from
environment, social sciences and civil society to ingrain ideals of efficient water
governanceinIRWD.
• The National commission for Integrated Water Resources Development that gave its
report in1999 had recommendedsetting upof RiverbasinOrganisations (RBOs) as a body
in which the concerned State Governments, local governments and water users would
have representation and which would provide a forum for mutual discussions and
agreement. This is being attempted through the River Basin Management Bill, 2019. This
wasfurtherechoedbytheSecondARC.
Page 4


River water disputes in India exemplify the major
hostilities that posit a humongous federal challenge to
river water governance in India. Discuss
• Ithasbeenwidelyspeculatedthatnationswillgotowarforthecontroloverwater.
But, contrary to this apprehension, it has been the subnational disputes that are
farmoreomnipresent.
• CWMI Report 2020 points how India is experiencing a very significant water
challenge, approximately 820 million people of India - living in twelve river basins
acrossthecountryhavepercapitawateravailabilityclosetoorlowerthan1000m3
–theofficialthresholdforwaterscarcityasperthe FalkenmarkIndex.
• CauveryconflictbetweenKarnatakaand TamilNadu,Ravi-BeasRiver waterdispute
andsharingofKrishnawaters,tonameafew,haveexemplifiedmajorhostilities.
• Water is a state subject but the “regulation and development of inter-state rivers
and river valleys… in the public interest" is on the Union list. Article 262 provides
foradjudicationofriverdisputes,keepingSupremeCourtoutofitspurview.
• However, therehas been the following lacunaeinthe existing system:
• Efficiency and effectiveness: Only four out of nine tribunals, set up under 1956 Act, could
givetheirawards
• Protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution: Sometimes, the Centre
takes years to decide whether a matter needs to be heard by a tribunal in the first place—
for example, the Godavari and Krishna disputes started around 1956 but the matter was
referred to a tribunal only in 1969. After the tribunal has been formed, it again takes many
yearstopronounceitsaward—ittooknineyearsfromreferenceinthecaseoftheNarmada
tribunal
• Opacityintheinstitutionalframeworkandguidelinesthatdefinetheseproceedings: Alan
Richards and Nirvikar Singh note in their paper on India’s inter-state water disputes,“There
are too many options, and there is too much discretion at too many stages of the process".
This is partly because of procedural complexities involving multiple stakeholders across
governmentsandagencies
• Ensuring compliance: Ambivalent distribution of power between the Centre and the states
as far as management of interstate rivers are concerned, leading to a federal jurisdictional
ambiguity. State governments have sometimes rejected tribunal awards. For example, the
PunjabgovernmentplayedtruantinthecaseoftheRavi-Beastribunal
• Thus, institutional lacunae, lack of political will, inadequate appreciation of the ecological
and economic costs of such protracted conflict have constantly evaded a sustainable and
holisticapproachtothisissuebasedonfederalcooperation.
• Recommendations
• Consolidated dispute resolution- NCRWC recommended a comprehensive central
legislation, after consultation with states, to define the constitution and jurisdiction of
riverboardstoregulate,developandcontrolallinterstaterivers.
• TheSarkariaCommission recommendedthatonce a statemakes anapplicationunderthe
Interstate River Water Disputes Act, the Centre must, within a year, appoint a tribunal. It
proposed that the Centre should also have suo motu power to appoint a tribunal if it is
satisfiedthatadisputeexists.
• Centre’s proposal to set up, alongside a single time bound tribunal as per IRWD
(amendment) bill 2019, an agency that will collect and process data on river waters has
potential.
• The Punchhi commission recommended a multidisciplinary tribunal with experts from
environment, social sciences and civil society to ingrain ideals of efficient water
governanceinIRWD.
• The National commission for Integrated Water Resources Development that gave its
report in1999 had recommendedsetting upof RiverbasinOrganisations (RBOs) as a body
in which the concerned State Governments, local governments and water users would
have representation and which would provide a forum for mutual discussions and
agreement. This is being attempted through the River Basin Management Bill, 2019. This
wasfurtherechoedbytheSecondARC.
• Inter-state water disputes are no longer just about water allocation
but have become hugely politicized. A robust institutional framework
is required that aids both vertical and horizontal federalism.
• Since Article 262 of the Constitution provides that neither the
Supreme Court nor any other Court shall exercise jurisdiction in
respect of inter-State river disputes, it is necessary that the spirit
behind this provision is fully appreciated.
• At the same time, a more proactive and cooperative spirit is needed
from both Centre and states for quick resolution of disputes as well as
implementation of awards.
• Finally the management of inter-state river waters underlines the
need for a national water policy for effective conservation and
management and holistic water governance in the country.