Sec Assignment

ABSTRACT: -
Scarcity of water resources, increasing population, and poor water management in India has
resulted in increasing demand of water resources. The increasing scarcity of water leads to
desire for water control, which in turn becomes a ground for breeding social conflicts. These
conflicts are manifested in inter-state wars. Out of many water disputes in India, herein the
Cauvery dispute between the state of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu will be considered. The
social conflict on water between the two states would be analysed on the Louis Kriesberg’s
reading based on the social conflicts, and the discussion will be divided into four parts.
Firstly, the dispute between the two states will be analysed on the bases of conflicts. The
emergence of a social conflict will be taken into account. The process of escalation and de-
escalation will make up the third part. Finally, the characteristics of a social conflict will be
considered on the basis of the water-sharing dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in
the conclusion.

ANALYZING THE CONFLICT: -

Any social conflict is characterized by its five central features which involves that they are
universal and beneficial, they are waged with varying destructiveness, they entail contested
social constructions, can be transformed, and they are dynamic and move through several
stages. The analyzation of the Cauvery dispute will be considered on the social conflict’s fifth
core element that social conflicts are dynamic and tend to move via various stages which
includes: bases, emergence, escalation, de-escalation, termination, and results in an outcome
that become bases for another conflict.

• BASES OF THE CAUVERY DISPUTE: -

A social conflict arises when two or more persons or groups manifest that they have
incompatible goals. This water sharing dispute involves four participants: Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka, Kerala, and Pondicherry, but Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are the two main
adversaries. The Cauvery water sharing dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka holds
Tamil Nadu as an adversary which attempted to manifest the state of Karnataka as an upper
riparian state to share Cauvery’s water i.e., coercing the state of Karnataka to make desired
concessions (sharing of water) for Tamil Nadu, which is a lower riparian state. Since
Karnataka interferes with its full ability to accomplish its objective to, somehow, prevent the
release of Cauvery’s water for Tamil Nadu, shows that both the parties have incompatible
goals. Moreover, both the warring parties are aware of the fact how both of them will be
affected by the sharing of water.
According to Louis Kriesberg, the social conflicts are unavoidable therefore it is prudent to
look into the underlying bases of the social conflicts in universal characteristics of human and
their societies, system context, and synthesis.
A social conflict embodies two individuals, groups, parties, or organisations. So, a conflict
among humans attributes the conflict towards “human nature,” which is being nurtured and
socialized in social environments. A widely held assumption about human nature is that
individuals have a set of basic human needs, and if those are not satisfied, people will strive
to fulfil them. Therefore, to satisfy their basic necessity the state of Tamil Nadu and
Karnataka are embroiled in a water dispute for sharing Cauvery, which originates from
Talakaveri (Thalakavery) in Kodagu district in Karnataka. It has a drainage area of around
81,155 square kilometres which is spread across four states – Karnataka (34,273 square
kilometres) Tamil Nadu (43,867 square kilometres), Kerala (2,866 square kilometres) and
Puducherry (149 square kilometres), water for more than a century. However, this human
nature widely depends upon the system context and by the relationship between adversaries.

The system context, secondly, involves the ideas of scarcity of resources, distribution of
capacities, and relationship between adversaries to wage a social conflict. The scarcity of
water in both the 19th century and 20th century in state of Tamil Nadu and then Karnataka for
irrigation and developmental activities, led to the competition for the Cauvery water. The
fight for Cauvery River water become even more important during rainfall deficient years, as
the entire basin delta of the Cauvery River falls under the drought prone area. Therefore,
Cauvery River water is the only source of water in this region. This is how, the Cauvery
River become the bone of contention between the two states.

With regard to the distribution of capacities, as far as water resources are concerned, around
53% of Cauvery water resources fall within the geographic boundaries of Karnataka, whereas
only 30% of water resources fall within the geographical borders of Tamil Nadu. On the other
hand, 54% of river basin area (the portion of land drained by the river) lies in the state of
Tamil Nadu, whereas only 42% of Cauvery River basin area is in Karnataka. Thus, Tamil
Nadu occupying the downstream region of the water wants water-use regulated in the
upstream. Whereas Karnataka refuses to do so and claim primacy as an upstream user fot its
own needs (as per the facts provided above, Karnataka claims more rights over Cauvery
water as the river originates in the state and they hold 53% of water resources fall within their
state). The water of river is almost fully utilized, and both the states have increasing demand
for agriculture and industry. However, the consumption is more in Tamil Nadu where the
catchment area is rockier.

Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are in an integrated relationship as both are dependent upon the
Cauvery water, although both have unequal distribution capacities. When the adversaries are
in an integrated relation they tend to engage in fighting and competing more likely. Indeed,
more the parties interact with each other, and quarrel about the matters, each tends derive
benefits from that relationship. The more discussions and deliberations have taken place
between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, both tend to have more benefits from them, making the
conflict reduction less likely. Since the integration between the parties is relatively unequal,
who are divided by their claims to scarce and valued resources, therefore they tend to
generate grievances.

At last, in vast number of conflicts in which many participants are involved they tend to get
interlocked with other factors other than the main issue. The primary quarrel, in this case,
has always been about the sharing and distribution of water of Cauvery River between the
two states. Over the years, repeated attempts from both the states and central governments
have failed to resolve this dispute which has now transformed into regional conflict. The
Cauvery Water Dispute has become a very sensitive topic for common people of both the
states who now regard treat it as a fight for regional supremacy between the two states.
 • EMERGENCE OF THE CAUVERY DISPUTE: -

According to Louis Kriesberg, any social conflict accrues when the involved conflicting
groups have shared identity, generate a sense of grievance, form a goal to change another
party’s perception to reduce the grievance, and finally belief that they can bring some change
in that particular situation.
To begin with the shared identities, the water sharing disputes between Karnataka and Tamil
Nadu envisages an identity of self and others among the people involved. The Tamilians and
the people of Karnataka shares a feeling of homogeneity among their groups of people. As
after the linguistic reorganisation of states in 1956, there were clear and stable differentiating
boundaries between Tamilians and the people of Karnataka i.e., they started recognizing the
conflict as a contestation between the in-groups (like them) and the out-groups (not like
them). In other words, the Tamilians stands with “us” (the people living in the territory of
Tamil Nadu) against “them” and vice-versa in case of Kannada speaking people. The
Tamilians and Kannada- speaking people shares same culture; language, which, in turn, eases
the communication between the people speaking a same language; and interests, respectively.
Insofar the clear and unchanging boundaries, therefore, develop a sense of solidarity and
shared fate among the people having a shared identity. However, these clear and stable
boundaries help in the de-escalation of the conflict.
In the 19th century, the Madras presidency (now Tamil Nadu) had referred to the injustices it
suffered before entering into the contestation with Mysore. Tamil Nadu believed that it
received less portion of Cauvery’ water and, eventually, Karnataka had a greater sake on the
water. Dissensual contention arose between the two when Tamil Nadu protested for the
immoral and undesirable conduct of Karnataka and demanded for a change but, naturally,
Karnataka opposed its demand. Whereas based on the inflow, Karnataka is demanding its due
share of water from the river. It states that the pre-independence agreements are invalid and
are skewed heavily in the favour of the Madras presidency and has demanded a renegotiated
settlement based on - equitable sharing of the waters. Thus, secondly, it is important for the
adversaries to feel grievances in a social conflict.
Thirdly, the cause of an adversary’s grievance must be attributed to other party. As in
this case, Tamil Nadu’ grievances are attributed towards Karnataka. The redressal of the
grievances or the fulfilment of the goals is directed towards Karnataka that is, the supply of
water to Tamil Nadu as it is a lower riparian state. After all, parties that have nothing to do
with each other do not fight each other; conflict is a way of relating. At last, both the state of
Karnataka and Tamil are conflicting on the issue of water as they are aware of the fact that
the grievances can be redressed by the involvement of other actors or negotiators like the
Cauvery Disputes Tribunal, the Supreme Court, or other stakeholders.

• ESCALATION AND DE-ESCALATION OF THE KARNATAKA-TAMIL NADU

WATER DISPUTE: -
The escalation of any conflict includes six factors. The issue in contention, wherein the one
of the warring parties manifests the goals of each and in turn the manifestation is objected by
the other party, is the primary factor for the escalation of a conflict. Secondly, asymmetries
and increasing asymmetries in the course of the conflict led to the escalation of a dispute.
Basis of the asymmetries includes the denial of the needed resources. Non-responsiveness by
an adversary to the principles of negotiation or sharing of resources make up the third factor
for the escalation the conflict. Fourthly, expansion of issues and involvement of other
parties ensures escalation in a conflict. The absence of an overarching authority is
considered in an escalation. Finally, the self- shared identities paved way for destructive
escalation. The Cauvery conflict involves the constructive escalation i.e., it incorporates non-
coercive inducements due to the integration between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka on Cauvery
River and integration constrains them from destructive escalation but in 1991 and 2016 it
paved way towards destructive escalation that is involvement of severe damage to both
people and property.

The process of de-escalation involves the reduction in asymmetries. In this case, asymmetries
can be reduced with the allocation of Cauvery water can per the needs of the states by
examining their level of consumption and other factors. Also, the parties can leave their
integrated relationship (dependency on Cauvery water) which in turn reduce the chances of
a conflict. However, the Cauvery dispute has not been de-escalated completely as every
conflict result in an outcome that becomes the basis for another conflict. Here, the escalation
and de-escalation of the conflict will be considered in two stages: pre-independence and post-
independence.

PRE- INDEPENDENCE: -

The dispute over the Cauvery water began in the 19th century between Mysore State (now in
Karnataka) and the Madras presidency (now Tamil Nadu). To address their water-related
problems, both Mysore and Madras planned various projects on the Cauvery. However, none
of the projects were completed. Consequently, both faced famine and drought problems at
regular intervals. To address the issue, in 1892, an agreement was signed between Mysore
and Madras which ensured that Mysore would not build any dam without the consent of
Tamil Nadu. Overlooking the 1892 agreement, the King of Mysore, Krishnaraja Wodeyar,
planned to build a dam at Kannamabadi village to hold 41.5 thousand million cubic feet of
Cauvery water.

This was opposed by Madras, which planned to build a dam at Mettur with a water storage
capacity of 80 TMC feet. As their differences came to a head, Madras lodged a complaint
against Mysore. In 1914, after listening to both parties, the British government of India
allowed Mysore to construct a dam at Kannamabadi village, but with a capacity to hold only
up to 11TMC feet of water. Even this was opposed by Madras, which appealed against the
decision to the Secretary of State of India. The conflict was escalated with non-compliance of
Mysore of 1892 Agreement. Following an intervention by the Secretary of State and by
reducing the asymmetries between the two for Cauvery’s water, an agreement was reached
between Madras and Mysore in 1924. This was valid for 50 years. As a result, the Krishna
Raja Sagar dam was constructed in 1929 by Mysore and the Mettur dam in 1934 by Madras
province.

POST- INDEPENDENCE: -

In 1956, the reorganization of the states of India took place and state boundaries were
redrawn based on linguistic demographics. Coorg (the birthplace of the Cauvery), became a
part of Mysore state. Parts of Malabar which earlier formed part of Madras Presidency went
to Kerala. Puducherry had already become a de facto Union territory in 1954. Redrawing of
state boundaries caused parts of Kerala and Puducherry to be in the Cauvery River basin and
therefore become stakeholders in the sharing of its waters. While these additional claims
complicated matters greatly at a technical level, Mysore state and Tamil Nadu still remained
the major parties to the dispute. So, the involvement of other parties in the water-sharing
dispute widely escalated the dispute.

In 1974, the water-sharing agreement of 1924 between Mysore and Madras lapsed.
Consequently, their successor States in independent India, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu
respectively, found themselves at loggerheads over the Cauvery waters. Tamil Nadu
commenced negotiations with Karnataka. During the negotiations, the Union government
presented two draft agreements in 1974 and 1976, respectively. Both were rejected by Tamil
Nadu. On its part, Karnataka allegedly dragged the negotiations by adopting dilatory tactics
such as late responses to issues so that it could gain enough time to build new dams in the
upstream region. At that time, a crisis management system was set up for the following 15
years. Under this system, Tamil Nadu annually demanded enough water to save its crops in
the delta region, which Karnataka did not agree to initially, citing its own water needs. The
non- responsiveness on behalf of Karnataka, asymmetries in due share of water for Tamil
Nadu and involvement of other parties further escalated the water conflict.

In 1990, while looking at a petition filed by a group of farmers from Tamil Nadu, the
Supreme Court ordered that a tribunal be set up by the Union government to look into the
water disputes between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. After listening to the petitions, on 25
June 1991, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) passed an interim order. In its
order, the tribunal directed Karnataka to release water from its reservoir so as to ensure 205
TMC feet went into the Mettur reservoir of Tamil Nadu in a water year (1 June to 31 May),
with monthly and weekly stipulations. However, Karnataka delayed implementing the interim
order sensing public outrage in the state against the decision. In 1991 anti-Tamil violence in
Karnataka refers to incidents of mob violence targeting Tamils in state of Karnataka in India.
The incidents took place in Southern Karnataka on 12–13 December 1991, mainly in the
cities of Bangalore and Mysore. The attacks originated in the demonstrations organised
against the orders of the Cauvery Water Tribunal appointed by the Government of India. The
violence terrified the Tamil populace of Southern Karnataka forcing hundreds of thousands to
flee in a matter of weeks. Herein the shared self-identities among the people of Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu led to the destructive escalation of the conflict.

Karnataka’s withholding the water had no impact on Tamil Nadu from 1992 to 1994 because,
in those years, the State had good rainfall. However, in 1995, when the monsoon failed, the
issue of implementation of the interim order came up. Following a plea by Tamil Nadu, the
Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to release 30 thousand cubic feet of water immediately to
save the rice crop in Tamil Nadu. The order was ignored by Karnataka. Again, the non-
responsiveness and the scarcity of water in Tamil Nadu led to the escalation the conflict.

Consequently, the Supreme Court requested the then Prime Minister, P V Narasimha Rao, to
mediate. After consultations with the chief ministers of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, Rao
called for the release of six thousand million cubic feet of water and set up a committee to see
to its implementation. The continuous interference from the Supreme Court, interventions
from the prime minister and non-compliance with the orders by Karnataka made the CWDT a
toothless body. In this case, the absence of an overarching body resulted in more
complexities and escalation of the conflict. In 1998 then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee, however, was able to secure an agreement whereby there would be an ad hoc
decision each year based on the recommendation of the monitoring committee headed by the
Union cabinet secretary. A Cauvery River Authority was also set up, headed by the prime
minister.

Meanwhile, the CWDT continued its work and in February 2007 and delivered its final
verdict on the dispute. In its order, the Supreme Court had calculated the total availability of
water at 740 TMC feet at 50 per cent dependability. The CWDT allocated 30 TMC feet to
Kerala, 270 TMC feet to Karnataka, 419 TMC feet to Tamil Nadu and 7,000 million cubic
feet to Puducherry, while 10 thousand million cubic feet was set aside for environmental
protection, and four thousand million cubic feet written off as inevitable escapades into the
sea. This allocation meant that Karnataka had to release 192 TMC feet of water to Tamil
Nadu. To implement its decision, the tribunal recommended that a Cauvery Management
Board (CMB) be set up by the Union government. The CMB was entrusted with supervision
of the operation of reservoirs and regulation of water releases with the assistance of the
Cauvery Water Regulation Committee which was to be constituted by the CMB. The CMB
was required to submit its annual report to the four disputing parties Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,
Kerala, and Puducherry before the 30th of September each year.

In 2012, the Cauvery River Authority under the chairmanship of then PM Manmohan Singh
asked Karnataka government to release 9,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu. Karnataka
government failed to comply with this order. Tamil Nadu government approached SC, which
asked Karnataka to release water. Karnataka government finally ceded and released water. In
order to resolve the problem, Tamil Nadu government again moved Supreme Court in August
2016 to seeking release of water as per guidelines of Cauvery Tribunal. Supreme Court
announced it verdict asking the Karnataka government to release 15000 cusecs of water to its
neighbouring state for 10 days and after reviewing its previous order Supreme Court ordered
the Karnataka government to release 1,2000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu. This led to
violent protest in the state of Karnataka.

As the Cauvery basin covers about 33 parliamentary seats (18 in Tamil Nadu, 11 in
Karnataka, three in Kerala and one in Puducherry), 55 the issue has been exploited for
electoral gains, especially by the regional parties. However, the state units of the national
political parties too have benefited from stoking sub-nationalism over water sharing with the
other riparian States. Kannadiga versus Tamil sub-nationalism had caused violence and
damage to public property in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Now, the asymmetries in the part of
Karnataka, self-shared identities, and social psychological responses (feeling of frustration as
Karnataka was blocked in its sharing of water) led to the outrage and impacted on properties
and people.

Finally in its order of 2018, the Supreme Court accepted Karnataka’s contention that
Bengaluru is a world-class city which needs water infrastructure. Taking into account all the
aspects, the Supreme Court has allocated 284.75 (270 plus 14.75) thousand million cubic feet
to Karnataka, 404.25 (419 minus 14.75) thousand million cubic feet to Tamil Nadu, 30
thousand million cubic feet to Kerala, seven thousand million cubic feet to Puducherry and
10 thousand million cubic feet for environmental protection while four thousand million
cubic feet was written off as inevitable outlet into the sea. This apportionment of the Cauvery
water by the Supreme Court has to be followed for the next 15 years. This is how, the
reduction in the asymmetries in sharing of water helped in the de-escalation of the conflict.

However, Tamil Nadu was disappointed as its share was decreased and also it opposed the
construction of Mekedatu reservoir by Karnataka (even Karnataka held that this would not
affect the flow of water to Tamil Nadu). On the other hand, Karnataka government
announced that it opposed that part of the order which called for a CMB to be formed within
six weeks by the Union government to implement the water allocation to Tamil Nadu.

To de-escalate the conflict, as per Louis Kriesberg, one of the adversaries should leave its
relationship with the resource (they are dependent upon; Cauvery water) to reduce the
conflict. Therefore, the solution lies with state of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu by lessening
their dependency of Cauvery water making optimum use of properly treated wastewater.
Unfortunately, India has the capacity to treat only 37 per cent of the 62 billion litres of
sewage water generated daily by its urban areas. So, there is a need to increase the quantity of
water treated by the plant. That will reduce Bengaluru’s as well as Tamil Nadu’s dependence
on the Cauvery water.

• CONCLUSION: -

Since the resources are unevenly spread across the globe and their scarcity in one region
would surely encourage that party to fulfil its demand. Fulfilling of the demands will involve
the sharing of these resources with the other party which in turn become an issue of
contention between them. Therefore, in this case the uneven distribution of resources is
proportional to the universality of a social conflict based on the scarcity of resources. The
issues in contention, and asymmetries between the parties will escalate the conflict. The
warring parties must be having contested opinions, and each side will tend to characterize
the fight in ways that justify their goals and means of struggle they use. Every social conflict
can be transformed by reducing the asymmetries between the adversaries with the help of
state and non-state actors. Social conflicts are dynamic and tend to move through several
stages- bases, emergence, escalation, de-escalation, and then results in an outcome, which in
turn become the bases for another conflict-as depicted above. Moreover, after the last verdict
of Supreme Court peace is maintained between the two states, thus, making the conflict
beneficial. Therefore, the social conflicts are universal and can be beneficial; waged with
varying destructiveness; entailed varying destructiveness; can be transformed; dynamic and
move through several stages.