Some leaders and opinion-makers in Tamil Nadu responded to Yeddiyurappa’s statement, and eventually, at the foundation-stone ceremony, Karunanidhi asserted categorically that the project would go forward despite objections. He has been accused of using excessively strong language. Perhaps he could have expressed himself in milder and more measured language. However, so far as one can see, he did not say anything that warranted the violence that erupted in Karnataka.

Once Yeddiyurappa raised the issue, politicians in Karnataka did not dare to say that he was wrong. They too found it necessary to question the project. What could be Karnataka’s objections to the project? It may suspect that the project has irrigation and power components as well. Tamil Nadu denies this. Karnataka may also be apprehensive of the backwater effects of the project, though one has not heard this point made. All this can easily be resolved through mutual discussions or through Central mediation. However, the principal Karnataka argument seems to be that Tamil Nadu should not have undertaken the project at a time when the Cauvery dispute is still before the tribunal and the Supreme Court through petitions. This seems to be an afterthought. Tamil Nadu’s answer is that the small quantity of water involved in the project would come out of the share allotted to the state by the tribunal; that the project would not create a new claim to Cauvery waters; and that Karnataka had agreed to the project in 1998.

Whatever the merits of these arguments, it was very unfortunate that certain groups in Karnataka decided to mount an anti-Tamil agitation on this issue. It is not clear what the Tamil language or films or TV channels have to do with the rights and wrongs of the project. The candid explanation is that there is an undercurrent of anti-Tamil feelings on the part of some groups — only some groups — in Karnataka, and that it rises to the surface on occasions of this kind. It happened in 1992 too.

... contd.