Dammed if they do

A similar sense of grievance exists in Kerala even regarding the agreement on the Parambikulam Aliyar Project (again, a diversion of Kerala waters into TN) signed in 1958 — well after Independence. There is some justification for that sense of grievance, because the benefits of these two projects go overwhelmingly to TN, with relatively meagre financial compensation to Kerala (very low initially, subsequently revised, but still quite small). Looking back on that history, it is difficult to understand why Travancore/Kerala signed these agreements, but there were doubtless complex reasons.

Both Mullapperiyar and Parambikulam Aliyar Projects were major and shocking interventions in nature which really treated rivers cavalierly as pipelines to be cut, turned around and welded, but it was not the practice in those years to do any Environmental Impact Assessments. All that one can say is that if these projects were new projects now put forward for approval, they are very unlikely to pass muster as environmentally acceptable. However, the environmental aspects have not figured much in the inter-state controversy, which has been largely about unfair sharing as perceived by Kerala. Confining ourselves to that aspect, it is very difficult to resist the conclusion that these agreements have been generous to TN at the cost of Kerala. TN officials and engineers, and the public opinion influenced by them, would undoubtedly question that statement, but it is made with a due sense of responsibility. (Incidentally, the parallel with the Nepalese sense of grievance vis-a-vis India over the Kosi and Gandak projects is striking.)

Be that as it may. The agreements were in fact signed by Kerala, and the projects exist; waters are flowing into TN, irrigated agriculture based on these waters has grown, and income and prosperity have been built in Teni, Madurai and Coimbatore areas of TN. It is not possible to change that history. Even if TN had had no rights over these waters initially, it has been using them for a long period and has perhaps acquired some rights by long and established usage. That is not a legal statement, but merely the recognition of a fact. The projects stand, and the two states have to do what they can for adjustments in the interest of greater equity and justice.

That background has been gone into only to show there is a long history of dispute and difference that lies behind and colours the current controversy. This dispute is about the safety of the dam and the advisability of raising the water level from 136 to 142 ft. There is a divergence on this between TN and Kerala. TN wants more irrigation waters and proposes to raise the water level. They say that the safety of the structure for this purpose has been vouched for by the Central Water Commission. Kerala is unconvinced and does not want to take the risk. What would be the right approach here?

Let us remember that the dam is 111 years old. There have been worries about its safety in the past. Regardless of the certification by the Central Water Commission, it seems to this writer that “the precautionary principle” should prevail. It would be wise to be very careful about subjecting the dam to any avoidable stress. Moreover, as between TN which wants more irrigation and Kerala which is worried about safety, greater weight should surely be given to the latter. There is a tendency in TN to treat Kerala’s objections as “political”, but it would be wiser to accept the genuineness of Kerala’s concerns.

This is a dam in Kerala, on land leased for 999 years to TN, operated for and by TN. While the benefits go to TN, the risks are borne by the people of Kerala. The Kerala government has the prime responsibility to ensure their safety; their word should carry greater weight. It has had an act passed enabling it to act in the interest of the safety of dams in the state. The validity of that act has been questioned by TN in the Supreme Court. Talks between the two states do not seem to be making much progress. Kerala tried to have an independent assessment of the safety of the dam carried out, but abandoned the attempt when faced with opposition by TN. Farmers in TN, who stand to benefit from additional irrigation waters, have been holding demonstrations, stopping traffic and so on. Fortunately, the TN chief minister has requested the people of his state to be calm, not to resort to marches and demonstrations, and to leave the matter to be handled by the TN government. One hopes the statesmanship that this shows will continue and prevail.

Is TN being high-handed and insensitive to Kerala’s concerns? Is Kerala being unreasonable and negative? All that one can say is that the benefit of the doubt should be given to Kerala. The farmers of TN must remember their “rights” over Periyar waters are not natural or riparian rights; they are rights arising out of an agreement. They are receiving waters because Kerala has been good enough to give them that bounty. The attitude of TN farmers towards Kerala should be one of gratitude, and not one of anger or resentment. Secondly, Kerala government is entitled to exercise abundant caution about the safety of people, property, and wildlife in the state. Safety is paramount. TN’s efforts should be to reassure Kerala and assuage its anxiety, and not to complain about its unreasonableness or accuse it of politicising the issue.

The writer is former secretary, water resources, Government of India