Revanth invites KCR for Assembly debate on Krishna projects from January 2

The invitation extended by Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy to former CM K. Chandrashekar Rao for an Assembly debate on Krishna River projects, commencing January 2, is a significant political and administrative development with deep roots in India's federal structure and water resource management. This event not only highlights the ongoing political transitions within Telangana but also underscores the persistent and often contentious issue of inter-state river water sharing, a challenge that has long confronted India.

**Background Context and Historical Overview:**

India's geography, with numerous rivers flowing across state boundaries, makes inter-state water disputes inevitable. The Krishna River, one of the major peninsular rivers, originates in Maharashtra and flows through Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana before emptying into the Bay of Bengal. The sharing of its waters has been a source of contention for decades. The first Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-I), headed by Justice R.S. Bachawat, delivered its award in 1973, allocating water among the then-riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and undivided Andhra Pradesh. This award was reviewed after 31 years, leading to the formation of KWDT-II (Brijesh Kumar Tribunal) in 2004, which gave its report in 2010. However, the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, creating Telangana, introduced new complexities. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, specifically Article 89, mandated the constitution of the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and Godavari River Management Board (GRMB) to manage and regulate the water resources of these rivers between the successor states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

Post-bifurcation, the two states have frequently clashed over the interpretation of water allocations, project operations (like Srisailam and Nagarjuna Sagar), and the jurisdiction of the KRMB. Telangana has often accused Andhra Pradesh of drawing more than its allotted share, while Andhra Pradesh has raised concerns about Telangana's new projects. The previous BRS government in Telangana, led by KCR, had its own stance and strategies regarding these projects, which the new Congress government now seeks to scrutinize.

**What Happened and Key Stakeholders:**

Chief Minister Revanth Reddy's invitation to KCR for an Assembly debate is a strategic move. The current Congress government, having recently come to power, is signaling its intent to review the previous administration's handling of critical state issues, particularly the sensitive subject of water. By inviting KCR, the incumbent government aims to foster accountability, gather comprehensive historical context, and potentially build a consensus or highlight perceived shortcomings of the past regime's approach to securing Telangana's water interests. The debate, scheduled for January 2, focuses specifically on the Krishna River projects, which are vital for irrigation, drinking water, and power generation in the state.

**Key stakeholders involved include:**

* **Telangana Government (Current)**: Led by CM Revanth Reddy, the Congress party aims to assert its commitment to the state's water rights and potentially expose any alleged mismanagement by the previous government.

* **Former Telangana Government**: K. Chandrashekar Rao and the BRS party, who will likely defend their past decisions and actions concerning Krishna projects, providing their perspective on the challenges faced and solutions implemented.

* **Andhra Pradesh Government**: As a co-riparian state, its interests are directly impacted by any discussions or decisions regarding Krishna waters. While not directly participating in the Telangana Assembly debate, their position remains crucial.

* **Krishna River Management Board (KRMB)**: This statutory body, constituted under the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, is responsible for the administration, regulation, and maintenance of the specified projects on the Krishna River. Its role becomes paramount in implementing any agreed-upon framework or resolving disputes.

* **Central Government**: As the ultimate arbiter in inter-state water disputes, through mechanisms like the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and its various ministries, the Centre plays a crucial role in facilitating dialogue and enforcing tribunal awards.

* **Farmers and Citizens**: The primary beneficiaries or sufferers of water availability, their livelihoods and daily lives are directly linked to effective water management.

**Significance for India and Constitutional Provisions:**

This debate holds immense significance for India, touching upon several core aspects of governance and federalism. Inter-state water disputes are a recurring challenge that tests the cooperative federalism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. **Article 262** of the Indian Constitution specifically grants Parliament the power to provide 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. Furthermore, it empowers Parliament to prevent any court, including the Supreme Court, from exercising jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute.

To operationalize Article 262, Parliament enacted the **Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956**, which provides for the constitution of tribunals for the adjudication of such disputes. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunals (KWDT-I and KWDT-II) were formed under this Act. The issue also highlights the balance of power between the Union and States, as enshrined in the **Seventh Schedule**, where Entry 17 of the State List pertains to 'Water', subject to Entry 56 of the Union List, which allows the Union to regulate and develop inter-state rivers.

Economically, the resolution of such disputes is critical for agricultural productivity, especially in a country where a significant portion of the population depends on farming. Water security is also vital for industrial growth and urban populations. Politically, water issues are highly emotive and often become central to electoral campaigns, as seen in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The debate could set a precedent for transparency and accountability in state governance, especially when new governments review the policies of their predecessors.

**Future Implications:**

The Assembly debate could have several future implications. It might lead to a more unified state stance on water sharing with Andhra Pradesh, or it could further intensify political rivalry if no consensus is reached. Depending on the outcome, it could prompt the Telangana government to approach the KRMB or even the Central Government for fresh arbitration or modifications to existing water sharing agreements. It might also influence the operational protocols of major projects like Srisailam and Nagarjuna Sagar. Furthermore, the debate on past policies could lead to a re-evaluation of current and proposed irrigation projects within Telangana, ensuring optimal utilization of its share of Krishna waters. Ultimately, the way this debate unfolds will not only shape Telangana's water policy but also impact the broader inter-state relations concerning river water management in India, potentially encouraging similar accountability exercises in other states facing comparable challenges.