Nationalise Rivers

nationalise the great rivers

The situation in the water sector has become alarming with water-endowed states enacting bills to prevent the sharing of river waters flowing through their territories by the neighbouring states. In the past, the Government of Karnataka had passed an ordinance on the Cauvery waters assuming the role of "a judge in its own cause".
More recently, the Kerala Assembly passed a Bill prohibiting any transfer of its waters outside the State. And now the Punjab Assembly has passed a Bill terminating all previous agreements and accords on its river waters with the neighbouring states. The acrimonious disputes among the states over their rights on the waters flowing through their territories have resulted in billions of cubic metres of fresh water flowing into the sea unutilised every year, while many parts of the country remain parched.

The country can ill afford to accept the position that politics can override the sanctity of agreements and spirit of federalism. Also the Centre should not remain a mute spectator if the water surplus states declare that the water flowing through them would remain their property and cannot be diverted and used elsewhere without their approval. The failure of the upper riparians to discuss with their lower riparians and resolve the differences among them to ensure equitable and sustainable utilisation of the river flows has naturally triggered the demand for nationalisation of these rivers which contribute more than 85 per cent of the country's utilisable water resources.

The water-endowed states claim the subject "Water" is a State subject under the Constitution and hence the Centre has no authority to interfere as the very concept is against the autonomy of the states guaranteed under the Constitution. However, the states are obliged to cooperate with each other under the principle of federalism of the polity. Thus, while on the one hand these states clamour for their rights and to safeguard their autonomous status, they forget their obligations to cooperate with each other while practicing federalism. Due to the rigid stand now taken by some of the states in the matters related to ownership of the rivers, the necessity for nationalisation of rivers needs serious consideration.

Many legal aspects are involved in dealing with the emotive issue of water - the allocation of river waters, water rights, etc. Since "Water" is listed as "State" subject under the Constitution, according to some legal pundits only a constitutional amendment, and bringing water under the "Central" or "Concurrent list" , can make the Union can take effective steps in the development and management of the water resources. However, many others, quoting the Sarkaria Commission, insist the Centre has only to empower itself to control the interstate rivers.

Though the existing provisions in the Constitution relating to water is contained in Entry 17 of List II (State List), this Entry is subject to the provisions of the Entry 56 of List I (Union List). Entry 56 under Union List reads: "Regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest."

The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations, which examined this issue in detail, opined that the scheme of the Constitution was there was need for Union control over waters of interstate rivers and river valleys for their regulation and control but in matters of local concern as in the case of land, states should have powers in respect of waters which are not part of interstate rivers and are located within the territory of each State. As interstate rivers are not located entirely within a State but only flow through its territories, no State can lay claim to the exclusive use of such waters and/or deprive other states of their just share.



Since the jurisdiction of a State by virtue of Article 245 is territorially limited, only Parliament can have powers to regulate, by law, the beneficial use and distribution of such waters among the states. Hence the commission was of the view that the existing provisions in the Constitution are the best to deal with the issue of water. The commission thus did not support the suggestions from different quarters to include the subject of water either in the "Union List" or the "Concurrent List".

The Centre can still bring interstate rivers under its purview by Parliament enacting a law for the regulation and development of these rivers, thus taking over the control of these rivers. Enactment of laws in itself is not adequate to ensure their optimal development and management. We have also to set up an acceptable mechanism to deal with water issues to ensure that while appreciating the rights of the co-basin states, the needs of the stakeholders would be taken into account and the available water will be equitably shared by the concerned states. For this, institutions such as National Water Authority supported by River Basin Authorities have to be established with adequate powers. This can be done by amending the existing River Boards Act (1956).

The present tragedy in the water sector is that political opportunism has succeeded in denting the spirit of the Constitution. Unless the Centre intervenes to take over interstate rivers, hydro policies will continue to threaten federalism.











Prev | Next







.