WATER CONFLICT

ASSIGNMENT- 2
Group-1

Submitted by,
Amruta Patil (M2019WPG002)
Jyoti Mishra (M2019WPG004)
P Shanmugha Priya (M2019WPG008)

Submitted to,
Dr. Pranjal Deekshit
1.INTRODUCTION
When Telangana was bifurcated from erstwhile Andhra Pradesh, the new state wanted to re-
adjudicate the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal -II (KWDT-II) award for re-allocation of
Krishna water. Telangana demanded to open the dispute case on the grounds of historical
prejudices and marginalisation. Thus, this adjudicated water dispute resurfaced due to state
reorganisation, besides other reasons like disagreement of other tribunal award by other
riparian states, conflicting interests among key stakeholders, prolonged adjudication etc. This
kind of recurrence of dispute can be witnessed in many water dispute cases and not limited to
river Krishna.
When such a dispute emerges, the states do have only two options – either approaching SC or
tribunal. But tribunals are temporary and dissolved, once the award is delivered. On the other
hand, SC has no jurisdiction over interstate water dispute, as per the constitution. Thus, the
resolution is dealt with the ambiguous space of law. Also, the disputes are political and are
often politicized for vote bank politics. This frequent recurrence and long-term deliberation
lead to insecurities and impacts livelihood of the people. The dispute often creates complexity
in federal arrangement impacting both state-state and centre-state relations. Indian politics are
also defined by uneven water resource distribution as it leads to regional imbalances in water
sharing, as evident in bifurcation of Telangana.
The book tries to understand the anatomy of disputes by examining the following:
● Reasons for emergence and recurrence of interstate water dispute.
● Factors involved in remaking or making of the dispute.
● The degree of political influence and their implications.
The lack of comprehensive understanding of resulted in dilemma of finding solution.
Accordingly, the disputes emerge and recur due to three reasons – legal ambiguities,
antagonistic politics and asymmetry in political ecology. The write up below summarizes the
first two reasons for the recurrence of dispute in the following sections.
2. Ambiguities: the limits of law

In this section, argument is mainly based on how the debates and discourses around interstate
water disputes remains only as a legal subject, in order to highlight the presence of
institutional vacuum in governing the dispute.

For a long, it has been generally conjectured that countries will do battle for the authority
over water, especially one that is shared between nations, for example, worldwide streams.
Notwithstanding, in opposition to this fear, it has been seen that subnational debates are
unquestionably more ubiquitous and are considerably more monetarily and socially
troublesome in nature. India has seen a decent amount of such threats between states erupting
every once in a while over interstate stream water. As India has a bureaucratic political
arrangement, the methodology of the Union government alongside the elaborate state
governments is incredibly urgent in understanding the resulting debates in the nation. The
Cauvery Conflict among Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the Ravi-Beas River Water Dispute, and
the tussle between the bowl conditions of the Krishna River epitomize the significant threats
that place a humongous government challenge to stream water administration in India.
In this monograph, the author talks about various legal and constitutional ambiguities that are
present and has led to the never-ending conflicts between the states over water. The author
builds this debate on how the conflicts have always been legalist in their approach and the
problem of institutional vacuum that has been there in terms of administering the interstate
conflicts.

The author first talks about the laws and acts associated with the resolution of disputes related
to water in the country and how they have been ineffective in doing their part. The author
points various ambiguities from the formation to the working of the acts. The two acts that
are the River Board Act and the Interstate River Water Dispute Act, they are mutually
exclusive and draw their legislative powers from Article 56 and Article 262 of the
Constitution. They both have evolved from the State Reorganisation Act of 1956. The
IRWDA mostly governs the resolution of the disputes between different states over water
while RBA governs water development projects that involve different states and rivers
flowing through them. But there is this provision that wherever river boards have been set up
the matters related to disputes over any scheme of development implemented by the board
cannot be looked over by the tribunals and has to be resolved through arbitration only as the
RBA suggests. And boards have not been set up over many rivers and wherever there is a
board it has not been directly set up through RBA rather it draws power through different
acts. Also, the tribunals have never relied on boards for looking into the implementation of
their awards. They have always recommended other institutional mechanisms for the
implementation of their judgments. Also, there is only one case where the tribunal has
recommended the institutional mechanism for the implementation, in most of the cases the
tribunals were dissolved after their award as they are temporary. and their awards did not
recommend any institutional mechanism for implementation.

The author also talks about the institutional ambiguities involved in the mechanism of
conflict resolution. He states how the idea of the adjudicatory command in the event of
interstate water questions has likewise prompted an institutional vagueness between the
councils set up by the Centre and the part of the zenith court of India — Supreme Court. In a
take-off from the 1935 Act, the Constitution of India has set down in Article 262 that the
Parliament or the public authoritative body would authorize a law that would banish the
Supreme Court of India from meddling in the interstate water questions. Henceforth, this
makes an established special case for the Supreme Court which is generally commanded to
mediate all different regions of interstate just as focus state debates in India as cherished in
Article 131 of the Indian Constitution. Yet, then again, Article 136 likewise enables the
Supreme Court to hear advance against the decision or grants given by all Tribunals and
Commissions under its redrafting locale. Consequently, if Article 262 dissuades the most
elevated legal executive from arbitrating interstate stream water questions, article 136
engages the Supreme Court to hear bids against the councils and furthermore guarantee usage
of the council. Thus, in spite of the protected bar by one arrangement, the peak court remains
the adjudicatory body alongside the councils in choosing the interstate stream water
questions. This makes an institutional equivocalness with respect to which body for example
the councils or the Supreme Court is a definitive adjudicatory force in the domain of
interstate waterway water questions in India.

Initially, in IRWDA the states were responsible for making sure that the awards came into
effect. But later a section was added which says that the central government has to implement
schemes through which the awards can come into effect. This makes it complex and creates a
point of confusion where the state and the centre are always in the dilemma where who has to
come up with schemes and who will look after the implementation of awards. 
Also, the fact that IRWDA does not allow state actors to take part in interstate water disputes
creates a lot of politicization of the matter. As they are not directly involved, they try to
influence the ruling party of the state through various means.
These ambiguities have been inseparably interlinked with one another and has intensely
formed the legislative plan, the institutional reaction just as the political cooperation on
interstate stream water disputes in India.

3. Antagonisms: The primacy of politics

Antagonistic politics is the nexus of water politics and democratic politics. This section
analyses the political nature of dispute and explains how political interests take advantage of
people’s substantive and emotive association with water for vote bank politics. The politics
shape the nature and extent of disputes, besides reimagining and rethinking federal policies.

Author had shared the political premise in the inter-state water governance. At a broader
contextualisation author points out the impaired narratives in India’s legal framework that
evades politics and political questions. As a matter of facts politics do play a significant role
in the interstate water disputes but, centrality of the legal aspects discards to incorporate.
Over the period of time there has not been any consideration to provide a legal backing or
provision in the matter of politicization in the dispute situations. Though findings of conflicts
situation do acknowledge the political dimension in the scrutiny. Still its impenetrable in
engaging it with critical and constructive aspects as it does not come with any decided
framework. To through some light on this author has shared views of Fali Nirman explaining
the power relation, as none of the political party belonging to the opposing states willing to
concede even a single point with the other state government. The water expertise also
recognises the advent of dispute situation with politics at play. Here author has shared the
remarks of Iyer stating the example Ravi-Beas dispute, after the unilateral decision of Punjab
government of annual water sharing agreement was nothing but a political game as a water
dispute. Water has played a mean/ weapon to unclutter the cause for dispute and
politicization.
The central argument of author is disruptive role of politicization in the interstate conflict
resolution extend into stalled in legal uncertainty, constitutional incongruities also, structural
deficiencies. Politics and politicization to be a cause for the unresolved interstate disputes
emerges from several aspects as there is no singularity in it. Also, the rigidity of legality and
framework encumbers to understand the decisive elements of dispute situation. Other
important point author has explained is how politics and politicization are significant in the
interstate water dispute and process of resolution. Author has put the points of politics of
contesting the antagonisms in shaping water dispute and the outcomes with the example of
Krishna river basin. Author has called it as a proliferation process of politics in inter-state
water dispute. As an output of providing the case analysis of Krishna river basin is to
necessitate the understanding of politics and politicization in the interstate conflict for the
better resolution and governance.
Understanding of politics and politicization in interstate water conflict:
The interstate water conflicts are complex in nature where it is quite challenging to segregate
the politics of contestation over the utilitarian reasons and mobilization of extracting the
political advances; as it shows only slight demarcation from their own characteristics in the
conflict situation. Author has put the several evidences to establish the nexus between the
water disputes and politics to make a point that politics is a significant variable in the analysis
of interstate water disputes and the approaches for the resolution mechanism.
The deployment of political ground in the dispute situation is often set by the inequities,
anatomy of irregularities. This is also the reason that politics always stir around the
substantive challenges in the dispute situation. Author has explained this with the example of
recent Krishna river dispute, after the process of adjudication for a long duration, still there
was a post award dispute when the political actors belonging to the downstream state of
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (before the bifurcation) showed unsatisfaction of the
outcomes. Here Andhra Pradesh government argued that the decision is resulted in the
inequity in the water allocation also, many unresolved issues. Afterwards state government
challenged the decision at the supreme court within a span of months. Same situation for the
Karnataka government, in the post award situation political leaders of the state urged the state
government to reject it. Situation for AP government got more complicated after the
bifurcation of AP state and deteriorated the conflict situation.
Role of politics in the Krishna water dispute:
Krishna water dispute was the one of the few interstate disputes emerged right after the
independence. The intensity and the recurrence of the dispute intensified many a times even
during the time of KWDT-1’s award was in the process of completion. In the analysis of
Krishna and Cauvery river disputes shows similar roots in the terms of unsubstantiated
relation of government of that time. Krishna river dispute set the ground for the consideration
of tribunals for the adjudication.
While analysing the what has triggered the Krishna river interstate disputes it emerges that
five-year plans had gave the huge stimulus for the interstate river disputes. As, riparian states
has been made with the budgetary allocation for the purpose of irrigation development. Also,
right after a decade the Krishna river basin irrigation projects there was a rapid increase in
these numbers. The projects of Krishna river basin the Nagarjuna Sagar and Srisailam
projects in the AP state were proposed beyond the set limits. These projects had been the
sources of contestations of riparian states. To get the control over these situations central
government has set up the Krishna-Godavari Commission for the assessment of the potential
augmentation of the waters in the river basin.
For the further delineation
of politics and politicization
in the interstate water
dispute author has examined
the historical concern within
the public sphere of the
Krishna water dispute in
post-independence. For that
author has used the digital
archives of the Times of
India newspaper to analyse
the politics driving this
dispute situation. Here
author gave a significant
value towards the state
political party allied with the
central government also, the
power equation among the
state governments. Here
author attempted this
analysis to speculate the
political deliberation in the
recurrence of water dispute.
Author also gave significant
credit to the well-archived
data of Times of India.
Author mapped the
instances after the post-
independence and aligned
against each year and that
resulted into the graph.
Figure 1-. Krishna river interstate dispute from 1947-2004 (in Times
of India)

Marked data at different points of visuals depicts key milestone over the period. And, these
milestones, the visuals represented the dispute’s trajectory and trends reasonably. Author has
explained these milestones with the examples of disputes, the highest intense activity in the
period of 1960s and it was a prior to the constitution of the KWDT-1. The same year central
government had tried to mediate after the three states had demand for the legal adjudication
process starting with the Karnataka government referring to the dispute to the tribunals. After
the rigorous process of adjudication final award was reported in 2014. This dispute might be
expected to occupy the public space to the extent as these marked milestones mattered in the
preceding the constitution of tribunals. By analysing the graph, it shows the regular spike of
the escalation in certain period of time, then the question arises of what triggers to the
escalation of dispute even after the award was reported. Also, the political conditions did
contribute to the apparent state of dispute situation.
The graph above also represents the political configuration stating the allied political parties
and power relation between the state and central government. The nodes of the graph also
represent the affiliation of central government and three riparian state governments. The point
that author has highlighted is the nature of democratic politics in the mobilization for political
actors. This triggers by invoking the tropes based on identity, ethnicity and historical-
geographical association with the rivers. Though this does not necessarily happens for the
political returns, this political mobilization also happens to be a cause through which the
struggle of politics over the significant challenges for the rights and claims over the river
waters by the interest groups and other important non-state actors in the institutions.

4. Conclusion:

The book kept Krishna water dispute at forefront to analyse the anatomy of interstate water
dispute in a federal democracy. The river Krishna was taken as example, as the adjudication
was done on twice. It revealed that the interstate relations, river’s geography and the
transboundary politics are dynamic, which would have implications on federal structure.
There is a policy and institutional gap that remains as a major factor for recurrence of
disputes. However, the response is given only in terms of legal without understanding the
politics, which is a key driver that shape disputes.

The dispute is also arisen by power relations which is asymmetrical due to historical and
geographical factors. In fact, during colonial period, there was power asymmetry between
provinces and princely states that led to prejudicial agreements favouring provinces. As a
result, development was uneven across geographies resulting in inequities that form a basis of
politicization of dispute. Thus, reconciling uneven geographies has been a central challenge
for dispute adjudication post-independence.

The state reorganisation on basis of linguist idea, as a sole criterion without the due
consideration of other factors, overlapped with history of uneven geographies, resulted in
regional imbalances and boundary separation in AP. This in turn restructured the
hydrological regimes aggravating the dispute. Thus, it is clear that political mobilization
could happen due to uneven outcomes and marginalized needs of sub-regional interests.

The other factors involved in politicization were techno-legal – protection of prior

appropriation rights, technical limitations and ambiguities, changing priorities of water uses
etc. Thus, the challenge is to manage and mitigate both temporal and spatial inequities rather
than achieving equity.
The range of factors – structural, historical, ecological and technological are sources of
difference, dispute and contentious politics, as a result of nexus between politics of access
and use of water. The non-state actors also involve in political strategies and sometimes, align
with mainstream political parties to push forward their agenda with regard to water
allocation.

The legal arrangement to resolve the dispute should be supplemented with other institutional
arrangement. This institution should work both ex-ante, for mediation and ex-post, for
effective implementation of tribunal awards. At present, only ex-ante is practiced with centre
as a mediator. But due to competitive states, coalitional politics and assertive regional power
centre’s mediation do not work effectively.

Since, state has not given any avenue to reach SC and tribunal after adjudicating award, the
adjudication by tribunal itself is time-consuming process due to many litigations. Thus, the
legal arrangement should respond to both exigencies and contingencies. It should be
acknowledged that the dispute can also rise due to changes in ecological conditions, changes
in political configuration of states party etc.

There is also a need for paradigm shift moving from conflict resolution to facilitating co-
operation on the lines of successful co-operation effort by some International river dispute.
The co-operation effort should be the biggest reform by replacing RBA with more
comprehensive legislation. The recent reform of setting up of Permanent Tribunal, though a
middle approach, did not provide any clarity on SC’s jurisdictional bar. As, constitutional bar
on SC to intervene in Interstate water dispute dated back to colonial times, this provision has
to be reviewed.