CM must maintain dignity, says Bandi Sanjay

Inter-state river water disputes are a perennial challenge to India's federal structure, often becoming flashpoints that test the spirit of cooperative federalism. The recent accusation by Bandi Sanjay against former Telangana CM KCR regarding the Krishna River water share is a stark reminder of these contentious issues. This political statement underscores the deep-seated grievances and competing demands among riparian states for a vital resource – water. Understanding this dispute requires delving into its historical roots, constitutional framework, and socio-economic implications. The Krishna River is one of the major rivers in peninsular India, flowing through Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh. The dispute over its waters is not new; it dates back to pre-independence times when the erstwhile princely states and British provinces laid claim to its resources. Post-independence, with the reorganisation of states, these claims became even more complex. To address such disputes, the Indian Constitution, under **Article 262**, empowers Parliament to make laws for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-state river or river valley. Crucially, it also states that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute. Pursuant to this, Parliament enacted the **Inter-State River Water Disputes Act in 1956**, which provides for the constitution of tribunals to resolve these conflicts. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was first constituted in **1969** (KWDT-I) to allocate water among the then-riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. Its award, delivered in **1973** and further clarified in **1976**, became the basis for water sharing for decades. However, with growing demands and new irrigation projects, the dispute resurfaced. Consequently, KWDT-II was constituted in **2004** to review the earlier award. Its award, given in **2010** and a further report in **2013**, aimed to re-allocate water, but the situation was complicated by the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and the formation of Telangana state in **2014**. Telangana, as a new riparian state, demanded a fresh allocation, arguing that the previous awards did not adequately account for its needs, leading to the current contention. Key stakeholders in this dispute include the four riparian states: Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Each state has significant agricultural lands dependent on Krishna waters for irrigation, along with urban centres requiring drinking water and industries needing water for production. The Central Government, through the Ministry of Jal Shakti, plays a crucial role in facilitating negotiations, establishing tribunals, and overseeing the implementation of awards. Political parties and leaders within these states often politicize the issue, using it as a campaign plank to garner support by advocating for their state's share. Farmers, who are directly impacted by water availability, form a significant pressure group. This issue matters profoundly for India. Economically, river water disputes impede agricultural productivity, food security, and industrial growth in affected regions. Politically, they strain inter-state relations, challenge the spirit of federalism, and can lead to law and order problems. Socially, water scarcity can exacerbate regional inequalities, lead to migration, and affect livelihoods. The consistent inability to find amicable, long-term solutions undermines national unity and cooperative governance. Furthermore, with climate change impacting rainfall patterns and increasing water stress, these disputes are likely to intensify. Looking ahead, the future implications are complex. The ongoing political rhetoric highlights the need for a permanent institutional mechanism that can ensure equitable and sustainable water management across states, perhaps going beyond ad-hoc tribunals. There is a strong case for updating the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to address issues like the reorganisation of states and the impact of climate change more effectively. The role of the Centre in enforcing tribunal awards and fostering a spirit of cooperation, rather than competition, is paramount. Developing a national water policy that prioritizes integrated river basin management, promotes water conservation, and encourages the adoption of water-efficient technologies could offer a more holistic approach to resolving these critical resource conflicts.