On 10th January, in an unprecedented act, both the Justices of a Supreme Court bench (D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S Bopanna) hearing the dispute regarding the Krishna River waters (The state of Andhra Pradesh v/s The state of Karnataka and Ors.) recused themselves from hearing the case owing to the fact that they hailed from two of the states involved in this dispute. This followed the recusal of the Chief Justice of India (Justice Ramana) in August 2021, when an amicable out-of-court settlement could not be reached between the parties. He too stated that as he belonged to both the states involved in the dispute (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana), he was unwilling to adjudicate the case. In the same month, the state of Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court to restrict Karnataka from building a reservoir on the Kaveri River at Mekedatu. Earlier, in June, the Centre had extended the tenure of the Mahanadi Water Dispute Tribunal for two years (up to March 2023), which has so far been unable to produce its report on water-sharing between Odisha and Chhattisgarh. The Dam Safety Bill passed by parliament in 2021 has also been challenged before the Madras HC on the grounds that it violates the division of powers between union and state governments. These events show that given the sensitivity of the issues, disputes regarding the management of India’s river waters are unlikely to be settled by the present mechanisms. Even Justices of India’s highest constitutional court do not feel secure from vitriolic abuse and accusations of bias while judging cases regarding contested tribunal awards.

India’s river disputes have become a prime hunting ground for chauvinist, rabble-rousing politicians, long and turbulent arbitration, and rounds of claims and counterclaims. Such disputes are however based on the impact the sharing of river waters have on the economy and livelihoods of communities living along the river banks, as well as the broader catchment area of rivers. India has had fierce disputes regarding river waters, not only within the country but also with its neighbours (China, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan). For the claimants, the water carried by the rivers is indeed an economic good, and disputes are increasingly fixated on the economic benefits of rights over additional Thousand Million Cubic Feet (TMCs) of water. Moreover, as India urbanises, industrial development and rising consumption standards promise to increase the rate of consumption of freshwater. Water scarcity will only add to the problem by compounding disputes (in line with the Malthusian principle of “scarcity induces disputes”). Climate change is going to result in even more erratic rainfall patterns. In 2021, South India recorded its wettest November in over a century, owing to a strong Northwest Monsoon. Such shifts are expected to cause even more variation in the water levels of the peninsular rivers of India, which are primarily rainfed, and also most prone to inter-state conflict due to differences in the realization of water allocation in deficit years. The economic condition of the agrarian communities especially in Southern India has a bearing on their political choices and this has led to greater politicisation of water disputes in the region. As India faces increasing scarcity of freshwater, with as many as 256 of 700 districts in India reporting ‘critical’ or ‘over-exploited’ groundwater levels according to Central Ground Water Board data (2017), disputes which appear to have been settled, might re-emerge.

​

The economic costs of non-cooperation on river water sharing are high. This acrimonious atmosphere between states has also prevented them from focusing on innovative new solutions to optimise water utilisation within the states, as governments and policymakers have been fixated on resolving long-standing disagreements. The violent protests triggered by the emotional and economic connections to river disputes have wide-ranging adverse impacts. For instance, the violent protests following a Supreme court order directing the release of Kaveri water to Tamil Nadu in Karnataka in 2016 led to an estimated loss of Rs 22,000-25,000 crore to Karnataka as the agitation hit transport services and businesses, according to industry body Assocham. Policies aimed at increasing farmers’ incomes, although well-intentioned towards the aim of providing farmers with remunerative prices for their crops, have further encouraged farmers dependent on river water for irrigation to plant water-intensive crops. 

In this background, the Standing Committee on Water Resources of the Indian parliament had urged the government in August 2021 to evolve a consensus among the states for the implementation of the Inter-Linking of Rivers (ILR) scheme, which was conceived more than four decades ago, given its potential benefits in multiple domains. In its conclusions, based on statements by officials from the ministries of Water Resources and External Affairs, as well as the state governments of Assam and Kerala, the report encouraged the MoWR to make concerted efforts to convince the States and arrive at a national consensus on the issue. Such linkages would prevent floods and bring economic benefits to the states. The numerous inter-state river disputes, however, has made any concrete action on these recommendations difficult. States as well as those who expect to be displaced due to these mega-projects have also expressed their grievances against several of the proposed linkage projects. Another issue with the push towards ILR is that it fails to acknowledge the realities of climate changes concerning India’s Himalayan rivers. Between 2009 and 2019, the world’s glaciers, including those in the Himalayas, have lost 267 gigatonnes of ice every year. The Himalayan glaciers are currently losing ice at a rate that is 10 times faster than the average rate over the past few centuries.

​

There are immense potential benefits of negotiating long-term settlements for India’s internal river disputes. With this, states could focus their attention on river conservation and preservation. Some of the rivers with inter-state conflicts also have stretches that have been identified by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) among the 351 polluted river stretches in India. This would also mitigate the ugly politics emerging from long-standing river disputes, which has only harmed the communities whose livelihoods are connected with river systems, as well as prevented states from reaping the gains of collaborative river management. The issues of river pollution, conservation, and rights over river systems can only be solved by a concerted national-level effort to reform existing legal bottlenecks and look for economically equitable solutions through negotiations involving all stakeholders. Resolving disputes and progressing towards sustainable river development models is essential for India, as we continue to have a large population dependent on agriculture, and to ensure access to water for future generations in the face of widespread pollution, misuse of river water and the impending challenges of climate change. We urgently require a new way of dealing with inter-state disputes without yielding to centralisation of authority with the Union. Governments, both at the Union and state level, must realise that the rivers over which legal and political battles are waged are facing an existential crisis. With them in danger, the livelihoods and economic security of their citizens are also in peril.