Polite but partisan
Regional newspapers take a parochial view when political interests of their own states are involved. No pretence there of national interest and all that blah.
You don`t say!
Darius Nakoonwala
The Cauvery award last week provided a first class example of how regional newspapers can take a parochial view when political interests of their own states are involved. No pretence there of national interest and all that blah. Thus, both the Hindu (Tamil Nadu) and the Deccan Herald (Karnataka) revealed their true colours.
The Hindu wrote that "by all reasonable criteria the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal is a just and equitable settlement…" The Deccan Herald wrote that "Karnataka has reasons to be disappointed." All very polite, of course, but clearly partisan.
The Business Standard got to the heart of the matter. "Considering that the country`s major rivers flow in more than one state, some being international as well, there is little logic in keeping their waters under the control of the states. No more time should be lost in declaring water as a national asset, and under the Centre`s managerial control."
The Telegraph got it completely wrong when it said that "It is unlikely that even after 17 years, the Cauvery water disputes tribunal has managed to say the last word on the matter it was called to adjudicate on. Of the four riparian states involved, two — Karnataka and Kerala — are already intent on seeking a review of the decision."
Review? Don`t leader writers read the law? The adjudication process was carried out under Article 262 of the Constitution. It enables Parliament to legislate for the adjudication of inter-State river-water disputes. The Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956 was enacted under that Constitutional mandate. The Cauvery Tribunal came up because of that Act. Not just that. It was the Supreme Court that told the central government to set it up. Finally, while the original Act had made any award of a Tribunal final and binding an Amendment in 2002 makes the decision have the "same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court." And, it may be noted, under a specific provision of Article 262, no court has jurisdiction. There is no appeal from the award of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court.
The Indian Express had nothing sensible to say and was full of platitudes. It even talked, as it is prone to these days at the drop of a hat, of
The Pioneer edit was plainly illiterate. It asked for a new dispute resolution mechanism. More nonsense followed. "The Cauvery Tribunal has suggested the setting up of a regulatory authority, which is an eminently sensible suggestion. But the remit of any such authority should not be blindly dictated by a tribunal`s decision; what is far more important is to allocate water by striking a balance between actual availability and requirement."
Subscribe To The Newsletter