I admit, I am not an avid blogger. I have still managed to make up one or two to my basket. Here, I read this blog (http://goo.gl/KK9No) and am made anxious to if not retort, but at least to reply to it.
The blogger Kiran has made a variety of points regarding the Kaveri river water sharing. I seriously and whole-heartedly appreciate his respect and celebration of this river which runs as the livelihood for the farming fraternity for ages undefined and his interest in seeing this long standing battle resolved amicably. However, his reference to the water sharing disputes appears to have brushed aside a whole lot of politically aspired motives of the beneficial side.
For a new learner to understand, this heavenly river is considered the holiest in the Vedas. There are two actions for which the result is undefined in Vedas. One is, the sin one shall mount on himself, for not taking care of his parents and performing their final rites after they heavenly abode. The other is, the blessing one shall gain by having a single dip in the holy water of this heavenly river. For ages, the farmers on the banks of this river were blessed that, their every single day went with a dip - a Kaveri Snanam, to be in the jargon.
However, the political melodrama started to take it's own course with the partition of the regions covered by this river into two different states, to be administered by two different provincial governments, elected by people belonging to the respective electorates. Here came the game show where, one who cries in favor is electorate has to be the one who cries for that electorates rights over this river. And thus, the emotions have ever run high henceforth. The river runs diagonally from North West to South East. Thereby, the 'benefecial side', the north western portion of the river, in Karnataka, happened to gather more storm and eventually political benefits by making such drama. As I keep repeating this as drama, what is the actual drama?
Any politician who claims the whole rights of the river is the 'son of the soil'. He shall be placed into power. Once placed into power, he shall be determined to defy all constitutional authorities and protect the river for the Soil he has been elected into. And thus, all tribunal authorities have been ignored. The central governments have been ignored. Why leave the Supreme Court? That has also been ignored. What is the result. A government which defies the apex court of the land, shall be demitted from office. What shall happen next? Such leader would gather much stronger political support in case if his government was sacked for not releasing the Kaveri water. Hence, the apex court happens to further strengthen the political muscle of the regional bodies. What if some chief minister is so law-abiding? Hm... Yeah! You can find any like that throughout India right. Still for an example. In such case, he shall be blamed as a traitor by the opposition and that would eventually cause vote losses. Who in our political spectrum is willing to relinquish their position for righteousness?
Whenever it is said that, the apex court has ordered thus, there comes a strong reaction from the other side, if there's water, that shall be shared and otherwise how? One must understand the functioning of the court of law prior to this question. In a court, the petitioner and the defendant are given enough time to argue and substantiate their claims. Based on their arguments, the judiciary arrives at a conclusion, which it writes as judgment. Thus, the judiciary is well appraised of the resourcefulness of one side and the dearth of the other.
Now, I do not want to leave the state on the South-east, Tamil Nadu, either. Here, whoever is the governing counterpart of the other state, the people will not be getting water. Ask why? Whoever is governing here, by themselves are less interested in asking for it. They are over-enthusiastic in 'fighting' for it. Hm... You read it correct. 'Fighting'. Only if you 'Fight', you will get the franchise of being the 'Son of the Soil'. If any amicable, discussion board based, face-to-face solution is on the cards, such a leader is a 'Coward'. He or she is 'sold out' to the opponent. Or has no will to save the pride of Tamil Nadu. It's pretty needless to say, as Indians, we have well established our egos and pride, and are never ready to forego them for any justful genuine causes. The same emotion is being used to play games on both the sides. The stupid farmer is able to see this; but unable to react or prevent it in order to avoid any stoppage of his rightful resources reaching him.
In the blog, Kiran has substantiated well how the river flows and where the contribution is, and consumption is. I am not a statistic geek and would not question his prowess on this territory. But, it must be noted that, the major portion of Kaveri under cultivation, for not a decade or two, but for centuries have been in it's delta. For that matter, any river deposits sufficient sediments in it's delta region making it the most rich soil and thus qualifying it to be the best for cultivation. Kiran alleged that the area under irrigation from Kaveri water, in this region has increased; but, there happens to be no substantiation on this portion of claim. Unfortunately, on the other hand, there has been incremented irrigation appropriation in the regions of Karnataka, within the last few decades. These irrigation projects were well established keeping in mind of poll benefits of the political classes. Beyond this, the most ludicrous usage has been towards the supply of this water for urban utilization. This has been decreed by the apex court, once again into deaf ears. Here, when pointed out, I had mentioned in my response in the blog that, a mere 40% of Bangaloreans are Tamil settlers. Appreciate Kiran's response to this. Though the logic sounds defiable. He claims that, a over all consolidation of 4-5% of Tamils only live in Karnataka and thus, they cannot be to the extent given. As I had admitted earlier, I am not a statistic geek. My notion of 40% is disputable. However, there's a theory of density of population in economics. To make it precisely understandable, say the total population of Karnataka is 1000, and that of Bangalore is 100 and in this city there live 40 Tamils, hereby, both our calculations stand correct.
Here, I take down my blogging endeavor for the following reasons:
1. In point 3 of 'Complaints from Karnataka', he alleges that TN has been a troublesome state. I do not understand or wish to comprehend in modes and forms by which we were, during the British. By then, the British had been a bullying colonialist for the whole of India. But, I seriously take cognisance of his consideration of Veerappan and LTTEs as a homegrown element. Such miscreants are not farm grown or backyard grown here. None wanted them. And to say, they exist and hence TN is unfriendly is illegitimate. It's worth being considered a Racial SLUR (mind capitals).
2. Again there, in point 4, the area mismatch is a serious matter of concern. TN has been the agriculture hub of south India. The current uprising in Karnataka is a politically influenced agriculture factory. TN benefits the delta sedimentation of the Kaveri and hence must be given it's right of agriculture. The rice crop grown in TN is not wholly self-consumed but is supplied to the whole of south-India - the whole rice eating fraternity. And they need the privilege to continue agriculture because it's their hereditary propriety. It is being done for centuries together. Not after the state partition of the 1960s. Not for the political mileage that is being extracted.
3. In the solutions he had prescribed, the mentioning of lesser water intensive crops is a matter to be concerned. I defy this. Agree that we are in 21st century. But if that is the case, still, I am eating the same rice what my forefathers ate. I cannot substitute this with corn or wheat. This is called as "staple". A staple is associated with the culture and tradition of the soil. You cannot recommend me to get rid of that. Here, I regretfully opine that, his recommendation exhibits his high-handedness. If such less water intensive crops are the solution, why force it upon us? I have already said that, drip irrigation is a formidable development happening in the delta regions to reduce water consumption for irrigation. Despite that, one says, that these people are 'galloping' water, after one doing the same. It's totally untoward.
4. In his response, as well as his blog, Kiran states that the British has been unjustful and bullying. But, refers to an agreement of 1924 by when, none other than them were a party on the side of Tamil Nadu. I am not sure, what crap they have mentioned upon that. But, whatever be it, the Mettur and it's downstream is not an agri-rich region until it reaches Trichy, Thanjavur. And here on, there happens to be the struggle of waiting for the rains or the Mettur - an unending wait.
5. To say, Karnataka contributes 53% and avails 37% is something I find of less meaningful. If you are to avail the whole of 53%, then why should there be a river. You may better recommend to build dams on all tributaries, such that the Kaveri happens to be empty through-out. That will be pretty rewarding too. You can build cinema complexes, hospitals, schools, engineering colleges and make a great fortune on the river bed. One must understand, the river has to run through a certain distance to create a farmable and nutritious sedimentation. And this happens only when it reaches the Delta. In a delta, the river loses it's pace. The downstream current is less. Hence the soil richness is incremented here. Whereas in the other regions, it's head, or the wide-run regions, it runs amok. It does not leave behind any sedimentation but scratches and take with it. If you want to reap the benefits well ahead of that, it's your prerogative. But, anyone would find it absolutely unwise. And so, to say of contribution percentage is an unworthy argument. Besides, this exhibits the predicament with which the article has been drafted out. Why-give-it-out-of-my-pocket syndrome has seriously obsessed the author.
6. When I say, to think of other resources for civic utility, it must be noted that, I certainly argue on the same lines, be it Bangalore, Mysore or Trichy. Sides do not influence. If you are to supply water needs for a city, it is pretty expensive. The water is not retreated. The water goes literally 'waste'. I do not insist of bringing Krishna or Godavari, or Narmada for that here. I am not a geography expert either. But, all that I emphasise is that, Kaveri being a 'seasonal river', has to be left out for the farmer. Not for the civic consumption. This is certainly misappropriation. In case of a feasibility study, you may consume water from Kaveri, and re-direct other water from elsewhere say Krishna or Godaveri into Kaveri at some other point. Again, am no 'geography expert' here. But, all I am saying is, leave what is for farmers to the farmers. Farmers, I mean on both the 'sides'.
For argument sake, if the urbanisation needs of Bangalore be considered and Kaveri as being currently used, be encouraged to be supplied for the city, again urbanization cannot continue without industrialization. For that sake, one may be interested in using this water for the industrial purposes to - say for example a Coca cola plant. It will consume nearly 500,000 liters a day. Shall that also be allowed?
7. To show media photography of 25000 or 50000 farmers is again a part of the drama staged. Some basic questions: a. Is there any identity that all the 25000 are farmers? b. Is there any assurance, this staging and dharna is done merely for the fight of benefits, shedding behind the political calculations? c. Is not there a farmer class across the border? d. Is not that possible for them as well to stage a dharna of the similar strength? e. Will that provide gravity on the other side? Answer for all this is a straight, blatant NO. Such dharnas and hartals and bandhs are meaningless. They are the same traits being followed since pre-British era and our political heads are unable to think out-of-box for a better form of protest. Any better form of protest would be for the betterment of the cause than the cause-man who heads it. And hence, they do not prefer that either.
8. A bandh or hartal is not at all a solution. I am surprised to see Kiran going for it. If at all, if someone finds it non-beneficial to him or his clan, it is worthy to stage a hunger-strike. By that, one intends to convey that, he or she is willing to cause harm to his or her self and that may at least open the eyes of the bureaucratic and political supremacy. But, not to break, damage and destroy public property in the name of Bandh. This nonsense happens throughout India. It happens in TN too. But, I am never in for it. I cannot digest someone commandeering over me as to whether I can go to my personal choice of place or not. Be it for any cause or reason. If I protest, I join them. If I don't, I don't. Freedom is universal and pervasive. You cannot administer it.
In as far as issues and debates, Kiran had opened up, I had found myself in concurrence to his views. Pretty unfortunate to see that, we are to be branded as taking 'sides'. It shows the belligerence that has grown upstream from the masses to the classes - from the illiterate farmer to the well-educated IT employee (hope that's what Kiran is), as a consequence of the statehood based politics. This fire kindled for the benefit of few is eating the Nation's integrity. It's a serious concern. He goes forward and calls all Tamils as home-growers of LTTE and Veerappans. Without a tinge of regret. I am sure, he has enough to quote that he hasn't mentioned that. But if that is so, there's no place for these names in this blog. If Veerappan was home-grown in TN, he was home-hunted too. So why not write off this chapter instead of unnecessary rekindling? And further, if any retort to his views, then that is 'One-sided'. I find myself seriously dignified of being 'one-sided'. Unfortunately, I find his blog not 'one-sided', but 'lopsided'.
With this, I thank him to have instigated my blog writing intensity. I thank his feedback given so far. I appreciate his effort towards board-room solutions. But at the same time, would further appreciate, if the ground reality is properly understood and not just as mere statistics.
The blogger Kiran has made a variety of points regarding the Kaveri river water sharing. I seriously and whole-heartedly appreciate his respect and celebration of this river which runs as the livelihood for the farming fraternity for ages undefined and his interest in seeing this long standing battle resolved amicably. However, his reference to the water sharing disputes appears to have brushed aside a whole lot of politically aspired motives of the beneficial side.
For a new learner to understand, this heavenly river is considered the holiest in the Vedas. There are two actions for which the result is undefined in Vedas. One is, the sin one shall mount on himself, for not taking care of his parents and performing their final rites after they heavenly abode. The other is, the blessing one shall gain by having a single dip in the holy water of this heavenly river. For ages, the farmers on the banks of this river were blessed that, their every single day went with a dip - a Kaveri Snanam, to be in the jargon.
However, the political melodrama started to take it's own course with the partition of the regions covered by this river into two different states, to be administered by two different provincial governments, elected by people belonging to the respective electorates. Here came the game show where, one who cries in favor is electorate has to be the one who cries for that electorates rights over this river. And thus, the emotions have ever run high henceforth. The river runs diagonally from North West to South East. Thereby, the 'benefecial side', the north western portion of the river, in Karnataka, happened to gather more storm and eventually political benefits by making such drama. As I keep repeating this as drama, what is the actual drama?
Any politician who claims the whole rights of the river is the 'son of the soil'. He shall be placed into power. Once placed into power, he shall be determined to defy all constitutional authorities and protect the river for the Soil he has been elected into. And thus, all tribunal authorities have been ignored. The central governments have been ignored. Why leave the Supreme Court? That has also been ignored. What is the result. A government which defies the apex court of the land, shall be demitted from office. What shall happen next? Such leader would gather much stronger political support in case if his government was sacked for not releasing the Kaveri water. Hence, the apex court happens to further strengthen the political muscle of the regional bodies. What if some chief minister is so law-abiding? Hm... Yeah! You can find any like that throughout India right. Still for an example. In such case, he shall be blamed as a traitor by the opposition and that would eventually cause vote losses. Who in our political spectrum is willing to relinquish their position for righteousness?
Whenever it is said that, the apex court has ordered thus, there comes a strong reaction from the other side, if there's water, that shall be shared and otherwise how? One must understand the functioning of the court of law prior to this question. In a court, the petitioner and the defendant are given enough time to argue and substantiate their claims. Based on their arguments, the judiciary arrives at a conclusion, which it writes as judgment. Thus, the judiciary is well appraised of the resourcefulness of one side and the dearth of the other.
Now, I do not want to leave the state on the South-east, Tamil Nadu, either. Here, whoever is the governing counterpart of the other state, the people will not be getting water. Ask why? Whoever is governing here, by themselves are less interested in asking for it. They are over-enthusiastic in 'fighting' for it. Hm... You read it correct. 'Fighting'. Only if you 'Fight', you will get the franchise of being the 'Son of the Soil'. If any amicable, discussion board based, face-to-face solution is on the cards, such a leader is a 'Coward'. He or she is 'sold out' to the opponent. Or has no will to save the pride of Tamil Nadu. It's pretty needless to say, as Indians, we have well established our egos and pride, and are never ready to forego them for any justful genuine causes. The same emotion is being used to play games on both the sides. The stupid farmer is able to see this; but unable to react or prevent it in order to avoid any stoppage of his rightful resources reaching him.
In the blog, Kiran has substantiated well how the river flows and where the contribution is, and consumption is. I am not a statistic geek and would not question his prowess on this territory. But, it must be noted that, the major portion of Kaveri under cultivation, for not a decade or two, but for centuries have been in it's delta. For that matter, any river deposits sufficient sediments in it's delta region making it the most rich soil and thus qualifying it to be the best for cultivation. Kiran alleged that the area under irrigation from Kaveri water, in this region has increased; but, there happens to be no substantiation on this portion of claim. Unfortunately, on the other hand, there has been incremented irrigation appropriation in the regions of Karnataka, within the last few decades. These irrigation projects were well established keeping in mind of poll benefits of the political classes. Beyond this, the most ludicrous usage has been towards the supply of this water for urban utilization. This has been decreed by the apex court, once again into deaf ears. Here, when pointed out, I had mentioned in my response in the blog that, a mere 40% of Bangaloreans are Tamil settlers. Appreciate Kiran's response to this. Though the logic sounds defiable. He claims that, a over all consolidation of 4-5% of Tamils only live in Karnataka and thus, they cannot be to the extent given. As I had admitted earlier, I am not a statistic geek. My notion of 40% is disputable. However, there's a theory of density of population in economics. To make it precisely understandable, say the total population of Karnataka is 1000, and that of Bangalore is 100 and in this city there live 40 Tamils, hereby, both our calculations stand correct.
Here, I take down my blogging endeavor for the following reasons:
1. In point 3 of 'Complaints from Karnataka', he alleges that TN has been a troublesome state. I do not understand or wish to comprehend in modes and forms by which we were, during the British. By then, the British had been a bullying colonialist for the whole of India. But, I seriously take cognisance of his consideration of Veerappan and LTTEs as a homegrown element. Such miscreants are not farm grown or backyard grown here. None wanted them. And to say, they exist and hence TN is unfriendly is illegitimate. It's worth being considered a Racial SLUR (mind capitals).
2. Again there, in point 4, the area mismatch is a serious matter of concern. TN has been the agriculture hub of south India. The current uprising in Karnataka is a politically influenced agriculture factory. TN benefits the delta sedimentation of the Kaveri and hence must be given it's right of agriculture. The rice crop grown in TN is not wholly self-consumed but is supplied to the whole of south-India - the whole rice eating fraternity. And they need the privilege to continue agriculture because it's their hereditary propriety. It is being done for centuries together. Not after the state partition of the 1960s. Not for the political mileage that is being extracted.
3. In the solutions he had prescribed, the mentioning of lesser water intensive crops is a matter to be concerned. I defy this. Agree that we are in 21st century. But if that is the case, still, I am eating the same rice what my forefathers ate. I cannot substitute this with corn or wheat. This is called as "staple". A staple is associated with the culture and tradition of the soil. You cannot recommend me to get rid of that. Here, I regretfully opine that, his recommendation exhibits his high-handedness. If such less water intensive crops are the solution, why force it upon us? I have already said that, drip irrigation is a formidable development happening in the delta regions to reduce water consumption for irrigation. Despite that, one says, that these people are 'galloping' water, after one doing the same. It's totally untoward.
4. In his response, as well as his blog, Kiran states that the British has been unjustful and bullying. But, refers to an agreement of 1924 by when, none other than them were a party on the side of Tamil Nadu. I am not sure, what crap they have mentioned upon that. But, whatever be it, the Mettur and it's downstream is not an agri-rich region until it reaches Trichy, Thanjavur. And here on, there happens to be the struggle of waiting for the rains or the Mettur - an unending wait.
5. To say, Karnataka contributes 53% and avails 37% is something I find of less meaningful. If you are to avail the whole of 53%, then why should there be a river. You may better recommend to build dams on all tributaries, such that the Kaveri happens to be empty through-out. That will be pretty rewarding too. You can build cinema complexes, hospitals, schools, engineering colleges and make a great fortune on the river bed. One must understand, the river has to run through a certain distance to create a farmable and nutritious sedimentation. And this happens only when it reaches the Delta. In a delta, the river loses it's pace. The downstream current is less. Hence the soil richness is incremented here. Whereas in the other regions, it's head, or the wide-run regions, it runs amok. It does not leave behind any sedimentation but scratches and take with it. If you want to reap the benefits well ahead of that, it's your prerogative. But, anyone would find it absolutely unwise. And so, to say of contribution percentage is an unworthy argument. Besides, this exhibits the predicament with which the article has been drafted out. Why-give-it-out-of-my-pocket syndrome has seriously obsessed the author.
6. When I say, to think of other resources for civic utility, it must be noted that, I certainly argue on the same lines, be it Bangalore, Mysore or Trichy. Sides do not influence. If you are to supply water needs for a city, it is pretty expensive. The water is not retreated. The water goes literally 'waste'. I do not insist of bringing Krishna or Godavari, or Narmada for that here. I am not a geography expert either. But, all that I emphasise is that, Kaveri being a 'seasonal river', has to be left out for the farmer. Not for the civic consumption. This is certainly misappropriation. In case of a feasibility study, you may consume water from Kaveri, and re-direct other water from elsewhere say Krishna or Godaveri into Kaveri at some other point. Again, am no 'geography expert' here. But, all I am saying is, leave what is for farmers to the farmers. Farmers, I mean on both the 'sides'.
For argument sake, if the urbanisation needs of Bangalore be considered and Kaveri as being currently used, be encouraged to be supplied for the city, again urbanization cannot continue without industrialization. For that sake, one may be interested in using this water for the industrial purposes to - say for example a Coca cola plant. It will consume nearly 500,000 liters a day. Shall that also be allowed?
7. To show media photography of 25000 or 50000 farmers is again a part of the drama staged. Some basic questions: a. Is there any identity that all the 25000 are farmers? b. Is there any assurance, this staging and dharna is done merely for the fight of benefits, shedding behind the political calculations? c. Is not there a farmer class across the border? d. Is not that possible for them as well to stage a dharna of the similar strength? e. Will that provide gravity on the other side? Answer for all this is a straight, blatant NO. Such dharnas and hartals and bandhs are meaningless. They are the same traits being followed since pre-British era and our political heads are unable to think out-of-box for a better form of protest. Any better form of protest would be for the betterment of the cause than the cause-man who heads it. And hence, they do not prefer that either.
8. A bandh or hartal is not at all a solution. I am surprised to see Kiran going for it. If at all, if someone finds it non-beneficial to him or his clan, it is worthy to stage a hunger-strike. By that, one intends to convey that, he or she is willing to cause harm to his or her self and that may at least open the eyes of the bureaucratic and political supremacy. But, not to break, damage and destroy public property in the name of Bandh. This nonsense happens throughout India. It happens in TN too. But, I am never in for it. I cannot digest someone commandeering over me as to whether I can go to my personal choice of place or not. Be it for any cause or reason. If I protest, I join them. If I don't, I don't. Freedom is universal and pervasive. You cannot administer it.
In as far as issues and debates, Kiran had opened up, I had found myself in concurrence to his views. Pretty unfortunate to see that, we are to be branded as taking 'sides'. It shows the belligerence that has grown upstream from the masses to the classes - from the illiterate farmer to the well-educated IT employee (hope that's what Kiran is), as a consequence of the statehood based politics. This fire kindled for the benefit of few is eating the Nation's integrity. It's a serious concern. He goes forward and calls all Tamils as home-growers of LTTE and Veerappans. Without a tinge of regret. I am sure, he has enough to quote that he hasn't mentioned that. But if that is so, there's no place for these names in this blog. If Veerappan was home-grown in TN, he was home-hunted too. So why not write off this chapter instead of unnecessary rekindling? And further, if any retort to his views, then that is 'One-sided'. I find myself seriously dignified of being 'one-sided'. Unfortunately, I find his blog not 'one-sided', but 'lopsided'.
With this, I thank him to have instigated my blog writing intensity. I thank his feedback given so far. I appreciate his effort towards board-room solutions. But at the same time, would further appreciate, if the ground reality is properly understood and not just as mere statistics.
Posts
Wake up man, you are still in 2nd century AD I believe. You might be a very good representative of your Tamilian farmers, but your arguments don't cut an ice in this 21st century. Yeah!, you are eating the same rice what was eaten in 2nd century, but it is grown vastly differently by a vastly different farmer from the one grown in those times. Yes, the same argument of yours applies to farmers in China, Vietnam, Israel and USA too, but haven't they overcome many odds and found new/better solutions. Why can't we do that?. Finally, remember one thing, for a human being - whether a farmer or not, "drinking water" takes precedence any day over the water used for your 1st, 2nd or 3rd crop, period. That holds good whether you are a Kannadiga, Tamilian, Indian or a non-Indian!
ReplyDelete