Editorial 1 : The Telangana- A.P. water dispute
Context
The nagging dispute over the water share of the Krishna river between Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) and Telangana remains unresolved, even nine years after the bifurcation of the combined State.
Origin of the Krishna water dispute
- The dispute dates back to the formation of Andhra Pradesh in November, 1956.
- Before the formation of Andhra Pradesh, four senior leaders each from different regions of Andhra, including the Rayalaseema Region and the Telangana region, signed a Gentlemen’s Agreement on February 20, 1956.
- Among others, one of the provisions of the agreement was the protection of Telangana’s interests and needs with respect to the utilisation of water resources with equitable distribution based on treaties followed globally.
- However, the focus of the combined dispensation with respect to irrigation facilities was on Andhra, which already had systems developed by the British at the cost of in-basin drought-prone areas in Telangana — a fact which was argued by the leaders of the latter region from the beginning.
Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT-I)
- In 1969, the Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT-I) was constituted to settle the dispute around water share among the riparian States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
- The Tribunal allocated 811 tmcft dependable water to Andhra Pradesh. The A.P. government later apportioned it in the 512:299 tmcft ratio between Andhra and Telangana, respectively, based on the command area developed or utilisation mechanism established by then.
- The Tribunal had also recommended taking the Tungabhadra Dam ( a part of the Krishna Basin) water to the drought-prone Mahabubnagar area of Telangana.
- However, this was not followed through, giving birth to discontent among the people.
- Telangana had time and again reiterated how it had been meted out with injustice in Andhra Pradesh when it came to the matter of distributing water resources.
Arrangement for water sharing after the bifurcation
- There is no mention of water shares in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, since the KWDT-I Award, which was still in force, had not made any region-wise allocation.
- At a meeting convened by the then Ministry of Water Resources in 2015, the two States had agreed for sharing water in the 34:66 (Telangana:A.P.) ratio as an ad hoc arrangement with the minutes clearly specifying that it has to be reviewed every year.
- The arrangement in the Act was only for the management of water resources by setting up two Boards, the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and the Godavari River Management Board (GRMB).
- Unable to convince the member States, the river Board has referred the matter to the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS).
Centre’s stand
- The Centre has convened two meetings of the Apex Council comprising the Union Minister and Chief Ministers of Telangana and A.P. in 2016 and 2020 without making any attempt to deal with the issue.
- Following a suggestion made by the MoJS in 2020, Telangana has withdrawn its petition over the issue in the Supreme Court as the Ministry had assured to refer the matter of water shares to a Tribunal.
- However, the Centre has been sitting over the issue for over two years now even as the two States continue to spar over the matter day in and day out.
Way Forward
- The water disputes can be solved or balanced only by having a permanent tribunal established with appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court established over the tribunal’s decision.
- The immediate target of any Constitutional Government should be amendment to Article 262 and amendment to Inter-State Water Disputes Act and its implementation at the equal note.
- It is time that we all should rethink our strategy about water management, not just within states, but at the national level keeping the water scenario in the next 30 years.
- The channels of communication need to be improved desperately, in order to gain a consensus.
- The mechanism must improve in a manner that the body created by the Centre must adequately represent the states to protect their interests.
Editorial 2 : What counts is seldom counted: how the Census data remains under-utilised
Context
India is busy debating the caste census when the regular Census itself has not been conducted owing to the pandemic. This is the first time that India has not conducted its decadal Census since the exercise began.
About Census
- Population Census is the total process of collecting, compiling, analyzing and disseminating demographic, economic and social data pertaining, at a specific time, of all persons in a country or a well-defined part of a country.
- The exercise is undertaken every 10 years in India.
- The first complete census of an Indian city was conducted in 1830 by Henry Walter (known as the father of the Indian Census).
- The decennial Census is conducted by the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs.
- Census is conducted under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948.
- The population census is a Union subject under Article 246 of India Constitution.
Significance
- Census is the basis for reviewing the country's progress in the past decade, monitoring the ongoing schemes of the government and plan policy making for the future.
- It provides an instantaneous photographic picture of a community, which is valid at a particular moment of time.
- The census also provides the trends in population characteristics.
- This more-than-century-old decadal exercise is a matter of pride and distinction for this country.
Losing significance
- Unfortunately, though, the limited information collected, and the under-utilisation or non-utilisation of Census data, have limited the role of the Census in policymaking.
- Its importance is further diminished when numerous large-scale surveys are funded by the various ministries of the Government of India.
- The data collected are not disseminated on time, despite the use of technology.
- Concerns now are only about counting castes and minorities, which will help political masters serve their own interests.
- Information is released late owing to bureaucratic regulations.
- There is also a lack of interest by the scientific community in a nuanced exploration of the data.
Suggestions
- The design of the Census can be improved. A digital Census would ensure better quality, coverage and quick results in this digital age.
- Given this promise on the one hand and the uncertainty in conducting the Census on the other, the demand for including caste enumeration within the Census only adds to the confusion.
- Despite the decadal nature of the data, the inter-Censal and post-Censal information could very well be generated with interpolation and extrapolation.
- The fascination and engagement with the Census have been quite limited to two concerns: sex ratio and female work participation (in particular). But the Census data, if explored intelligently and systematically without the limitation of survey-based data sets like biases, errors and representational issues, have much more potential.
Conclusion
The census is essential and priceless because it serves as a repository for all available information about the nation and is a social benefit because it is conducted publicly, voluntarily, and with the aid of public funds. Fundamentally, though, it’s a method for the state to show that it wants to engage with the citizens who will ultimately make up the country by knocking on all their doors.