Part-2: Disturbed River Basins and Central Tribunals

Shortly after the 2007 Kaveri river tribunal verdict was announced in February, the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) came out with a critic of this verdict, a verdict that was much awaited by all three states - Karnataka, Tamilnadu and Kerala. Writing in this critic of the verdict - "Why the Cauvery Award is Flawed," Mr Himanshu Thakkar exposes the three important measures on which this verdict fails - science, efficiency and equity. Interpreting the verdict award as biased, Mr Thakkar writes thus about the sad situation Karnataka is put into:

The Karnataka state officials have given an indication of feeling aggrieved by the Tribunal Award... we can see that indeed Karnataka is the only state that has got less share in water than its share in the catchment of the Cauvery basin. When we add the fact that Karnataka area of Cauvery basin has less groundwater availability, we see that there is some justification [sic] this feeling.

Riding on common man's ignorance about (and indifference towards) rivers and water situation in general, central tribunal verdicts such as the Kaveri tribunal verdict in Feb 2007 seem to conveniently ignore the fundamental principles of hydrology and man's water need patterns, and devise water sharing formulae that only politically strengthen the central coalition.

Declaring that this verdict fails the test of science, SANDRP exposes how the verdict fails to take note of the ground water levels in riparian states while arriving at a water sharing formula. It further describes how this is harmful to each of the riparian states even though the formula, at its outset, might seem beneficial to the politically stronger state! This comment summarizes the concern these states must have about such unscientific water awards:

The Cauvery Award fails on the test of science as it does not consider groundwater availability in the Cauvery basin area while deciding the distribution of only the surface  water among the claimants. Tamil Nadu, being the lower riparian, has significant availability of groundwater, while Karnataka and Kerala, being the upper riparian, have relatively little of it... To allow unrestricted groundwater use and not to include groundwater in calculating water availability and allocation, is unscientific, to put it rather charitably.

Although one cannot directly attribute such unscientific water awards to the center's interference in solving inter-state river water sharing problems, one can certainly find action of coalition forces, at the center, responsible. Such forces compel the central government to ignore common sense in the field of hydrology and arrive at formulae that only strengthen the central coalition, in turn causing slow but steady degradation of priceless river water basins. The continued scant water awards Karnataka has been receiving as opposed to Tamilnadu, the other big Kaveri riparian, have made most areas of Karnataka in the Kaveri basin so deprived of river water for basic human processes that in many urban settlements ground water resources are being abused beyond healthy measures, steadily emptying the already poor ground water levels of Kaveri basin in Karnataka (p 74).

Hence, centralization - delegation of this responsibility to settle inter-state disputes about a vital local resource called water to the center - is surely not benefiting the states in question, but only paving new political ways to steadily destroy water bodies and create poor lifestyles for citizens in these states. There is an urgent need for democracy to surface in its real form in water matters and install a correct methodology to settle water disputes in future. As Mr Thakkar, in his conclusion, remarks:

Indeed, amicable solution of river water disputes is possible only when there is greater democracy in water resources planning and decision making, something that is totally missing today.,

there is an urgent need to educate ourselves about the need to decentralize such important matters and allow states to engage in useful dialog to eventually arrive at a more comprehensive and less deleterious water sharing formulae. It is high time the states realized they're their own awarders and awardees when it comes to river water sharing.

Part-1 : Should the Kaveri flow through New Delhi?

Come summer and the two south-Indian states, Karnataka and Tamilnadu, inevitably start the year's quota of dialog on Kaveri river water sharing and people get soaked in political arguments about water related negotiations and political engineering or the lack of them! This has become a pattern etched in stone, with the two states repeatedly being pushed into the arena by the sheer failure of political machinery on all three sides of the table - the two riparian states and the center.

This year the cry heard in some Karnataka voices is the need for a national (river) water sharing policy stemming from an apparent belief that such a 'national policy' could magically uncoil the tension among riparian states just because a third party, the union government, proclaiming itself to be JUST & EQUAL, when given the funnel, will take in all the water in the rivers and direct them to the riparian states in a fair manner. This is pure fiction, as will be shown in this series.

Regardless of the fairness in this deal between states and the union, these are the things that need to be deeply pondered about:

1. (River) Water sharing between states is a characteristically local problem, limited to the interests of the riparian states and the people within them directly influenced by the river waters. A solution to this had rather not come from outside of the problem domain for those would not really address the problem!
2. The farther removed a government is that is arbitrating river water sharing between states, the little it can do to benefit the riparian states, and the lesser JUST & EQUAL its policies and decisions come across to some of them. 'The reason why this is so often the case is that bureaucrats and technicians base themselves mainly on political considerations external to the region in question: the needs of the local population rarely feature at all' ("Water under threat", p 161). Hence the union govt. which is further removed than the governments of the riparian states is much poorly disposed to do justice to these states. (In fact it is better disposed to favor either of the states over the other!)
3. The adverse impact such remotely-designed policies have on the hydrology of various river basins is considerable and long-lasting. Historical tribunals of such remote origins and their verdicts on river water sharing in India have proven this point amply.

Keen on catching up on this debate? Here're some trivia (along with my interpretation) I thought we'd rather help ourselves with before we dive-in, hoping it'll expose whatever sense exists in this argument (about the consequences of a national river water sharing policy).

1. The preamble to the Indian constitution offers JUSTICE (social, economic and political) and EQUALITY (of status and of opportunity) to the citizens of India.
• Literally interpreting: Among other things. the citizens of this republic are secured social, economic and political JUSTICE. 
• Likewise, the citizens have also been secured their EQUALITY of status and of opportunity in this sovereign democratic republic.
2. Item 56 in the Seventh Schedule of this constitution places regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys under the Union List. 
• This officially strips the riparian states of their otherwise natural political right to regulation and development of the rivers flowing through the respective states. 
• How can political JUSTICE be secured by stripping people of rights to govern and develop themselves?
3. Karnataka and Tamilnadu elect 12 & 18 members respectively to the Rajya Sabha and 28 & 39 members respectively to the Lok Sabha. Hence on every vote in Delhi, there are 17 extra Tamilnadu voices roaring to mute Karnataka voices!
• How can Karnataka's EQUALITY of status ever be secured by such unequal representation at the center?
• How can EQUALITY of opportunity be secured by a denial of states' rights to engage in constructive negotiations, targeted at deriving mutual gains, with neighboring Union members? 
• How can any government, other than the state governments, secure this EQUALITY any better?
4. Article 262 of the same constitution conveniently assumes the center (union govt.) to be the responsible body to arbitrate disputes related to inter-state river water sharing.
• But it has been found on several occasions that the decisions arrived at and tribunals awarded by the center have only provoked the states to plan or execute massive reservoir projects purely driven by hoarding intentions laden with greed & fear. 
• Such greed & fear are syntheses of non-federal siphoning off of responsibilities from the states to the center; a center that is not better disposed than the states themselves to decide on such local matters.
• One instance ("KWDT Report", p 331) of Andhra Pradesh describing river waters flowing into the sea as wastage is a clear indication of how such tribunals have bred greed & fear to dangerous proportions at the state level.
• Not only has this led to hydrological degradation of various river basins, but also led to intra-state conflicts (IWMI Research pub., pp 11-14) unseen till then.
5. Coalition equations at the center lead to biased water sharing tribunal awards announced by the center, thereby further complicating the battle over water jurisdiction.
• With the strength of such a coalition lying in safeguarding interests of its members and ally states, non-ally states, where national parties electorally dominate over little or no local political force, don't get their interests safeguarded equally well. Such non-ally states, usual example being Karnataka, are in a way expected to cooperate and endure pains of severe water deprivation while ally states enjoy unfair water surpluses year over year.
• While ally states, like Tamilnadu, continue to reap water lotteries from such central tribunals, as a compensation, non-ally states, like Karnataka, are lured with political mirages like ministries and other such confectionery. National parties, in turn, insure their electoral dominance in Karnataka this way!
• Hence this biased water distribution, and biased treatment of states in general is mainly attributable to the delegation of those tasks to the center that the states themselves should execute. This non-federal, centralized administrative structure of the union govt. combined with sub-optimal state-focused representation at the center is leading to distress and disharmony in this union of states.

Coming in forthcoming parts - The Indian Monsoon, Kaveri basin hydrology, Kaveri river basin water sharing history, Cropping history in the Kaveri basin and GSDP, Centralization - how states lose but no one wins etc., What is Federalism without Decentralization?

Namma Metro: Will we climb this Mountain between the Valleys?

Namma Metro is here, and my, is it the talk of the town or what? As a weird coincidence of sorts, I had to head out of Benglur on the night of Oct-20th - same day when Namma Metro was officially launched for public use; flying from one valley to another.. from one Metro town to another. In this context, here's a roll-out of my observations on our Metro in comparison with the Metro running in another Valley on the other side of the planet!

Upon a quick survey of public transport in two Silicon Valleys, we find on one hand, VTA, the authority that runs a hybrid public transit system connecting multiple south Californian suburbs, and on the other hand two bodies namely BMTC & BMRC together connecting our own valley, Benglur. Standing among various differences between these geographies and organizations is the common factor that urban public transit systems are localized-by-design, in that their target audience and the traits expected of their operation are all locally attributable. These transport systems operate within smaller limits, earmark a limited demography as beneficiaries, and structured in a fashion to assist the lifestyles of the local people.

Similarities aside, there's a marked difference one finds in the nature of operation & maintenance of these transport bodies, a difference bearing in the way these bodies perceive commuters, and the bases on which they appear to be taking operational decisions. These differences could be in taking budgetary decisions, in publishing them, or using the smallest opportunity to thank people for their tax money. The VTA (and its like) seem to be voluntarily ahead with an upper hand compared to their Benglur counterparts, who in turn not only fail in attributing their existence & operation to public tax money, but also display clear aloofness in their publications (some really vital documents not in Kannada, the lingua-franca of Benglur) and in decision making that affect their functioning thereby impacting the people - its customers i.e.

What seems to be the Problem?
As a generalization, it'd appear that these govt. run transport corporations, like other govt. bodies chartered to directly serve people in commercial transactions, do not take public as customers at all! Be it the BSNL, or ESCOMs, or RTOs, or the Palikes or BMTC or BMRC, although their very existence (& profitability in some cases) is hinged on public turnout, their indifference towards customers has continued to cause frustration among the public. In return our governments are known to have showered unconditional love and protection covering losses of such organizations with more public money. In doing so their indifference towards customers is solemnized and eventually legalized, making customers of such public sector undertakings fall dumb prey, left with little choice to churn.
(Its a different matter, of course, that this very lack of choice could have paved way for sever corruption in our society. Although this is not uncommon knowledge, it is important we the people write & read about this!)

Where seems to be the problem?
For instance, the BMTC is a govt. sponsored company that runs bus services in Benglur city. While it owes allegiance to the Karnataka govt (and hence the people) for most of its funding and other sponsorship, it still needs to be told about the importance of using Kannada in all its customer interactions, not just in its administrative affairs. It needs to be continuously polled and complained at the first instance of playing Hindi music inside its city buses. Having prevented any competition from breeding, BMTC has in a way been abusing its sponsor's (the govt.) dominant position to take undue control of the market and at thereby denying good service in Kannada to deserving Kannadigas of Benglur.

BMRC: Heluvudu ondu, Maaduvudu innondu

Taking a look at BMRC - problems galore from day one. Marked with public exclusion all along, this project continues to shock with information in three languages, one of them Hindi - a totally out of context language in a locally run train service, nowhere cutting across lands of Hindi speaking demography. Making it yet another instrument of Hindi imposition in the hands of a federally elected govt. in Delhi. BMRC's journey tickets are given weird names from the Hindi dictionary, and the boards inside the real train coaches differ markedly from their mock counterparts (see pic). All this talks volumes about public exclusion being practised big time in these organizations.


Well, where lies the problem, really? Is it in those government bodies? Is it in our own bodies? Are we being forcibly shortchanged by these government undertakings? Are such urbanization measures of governments feigning modernization running their hideous imperialist enterprises entirely at our costs? Are we ending up paying for all these Hindi imposition on ourselves? Or have we lost our grounds and forgotten our rights as a customer in all these situations? Have we unlearned the skill of running projects to meet what our society needs? Have we given up before the battle has even begun? The battle for better quality of living, for our rights as customers, for our rights as equal citizens.

Being Kannadigas, don't we remember anymore that service in Kannada is indeed our right!? Then why aren't we hearing people complain?? Come ooooooooooooooooon! Lets not buy our tickets after the train has left! Email: sivasailam@bmrc.co.in, sudhirchandra@bmrc.co.in, vasanthrao@bmrc.co.in, bmrcl@dataone.in.

IRS '11Q2 results: Looking at the Fine Print

A week ago MRUC (Media Research Users Council) reported results from its recent surveys of print media readership conducted across the nation. Statistics relevant to Karnataka reveal pleasing results with every other newspaper gaining readers on top of their base from previous year. This news clears the table and lays data afresh, portraying once again how printed content in Kannada still continues to top and lead readership charts across the state, with urban hotspots like Bengaluru being no exception.


A question of capability and choice
The IRS (Indian Readership Survey) is, according to an official release :

.. a syndicated study based on a comprehensive sample size of 2,14,486 with a geographic spread of nearly 70 cities, 1178 towns & 2894 villages...The random sample size is distributed across all metro towns, rest of urban & rural using an appropriate method that ensures adequate sample representation across all the population strata.

Apart from being a good manifestation of a people's literacy ratio, IRS data are also a good 'currency' for advertisers and media houses to trade with. These data provide statistical reassurances about the market reach of newspapers - something that media and ad agencies expect to obtain by partnering with the print media players in the form of advertisements and sometimes (paid) news! In effect these results are much awaited by benefactors in business & media houses alike. While business houses interpret this data to measure the capability of print media to reach their market audiences, media houses use this data as currency in exchange for a proportional amount of advertising investment by business houses.


There, but not yet?
Evidently, the Kannada print media has come out in flying colors in every successive IRS survey in the last 6-8 quarters, displaying fierce competition among its leading players, each inching further towards a higher readership QoQ (Quarter on Quarter). The following leader-board illustrates this competition, making evident the battle for the top two spots thereby emphasizing on the value of playing in the Kannada print media market. 

Kannada Print Media Leader Board (10Q1-11Q2)

This may be news to cheer, but statistics underlying them expose the relatively meager coverage of Kannada literates (& Karnataka population in general) compared to their other South Indian counterparts. 


Since literacy of a state directly dictates its limit of print media penetration, the same reflects in the maximum AIR (Average Issue Readership) numbers one can expect to see in each state. Kerala with the highest literacy among South Indian states tops the charts, both in terms of literacy and AIR whereas Karnataka with a literacy better than Andhra still fails to beat it in terms of AIR. This is not an exception we can ignore, for it indicates how poorly Kannada print media has been able to tap the literate Kannadiga population and also various other people that can read and understand the Kannada script. The following chart summarizes this trend.

AIR vs Literacy trend

While literacy agreeably plays a critical role in defining the market size, traits of a print medium such as: 

• content quality, 
• readership loyalty, 
• distribution efficiency, 
• localized rendering of content, 
• emphasis on local language usage, 
• ability to customize content and render it more appealing to local audiences 

Reach Comparison (%)

- appear to be influencing a newspaper's patronage. Kannada print media has miles to go and work to do to improve their patronage on the lines of what its neighboring language presses have achieved. This chart exhibits (in percentages) how a majority of print media in South India, especially the Kannada version have stayed below the average both in terms of net AIR and net literate AIR. (The red dotted lines represent averages.) While it may not be able to do much that can directly bump up Karnataka's literacy, the Kannada press certainly needs to strengthen its focus on education in Kannada medium and emphasize on the importance of increasing the usage of Kannada in every walk of life in Karnataka. Even a small example cited in this regard points fingers at a Kannada daily which writes reams about the importance of Hindi for Kannadigas, or another which does nothing to educate advertisers to not field English advertisement in a Kannada daily. The Kannada press isn't doing enough to help broaden the Kannada reader base! What is observed today instead is that quite a few Kannada press members have, unconsciously or otherwise, become glorifiers of the success stories in other languages thereby sidelining what is being done and what needs to be done to empower Kannada to reach the same stage for Kannadigas.


Contrasting 'under the lamp' observations
The Kannada press has certainly got some reason to celebrate, especially keeping in mind the fact that repeated IRS results from Karnataka and Bengaluru have revealed Kannada dailies as leaders in terms of AIR year-on-year, reinforcing the truth about how deep Kannada alone penetrates into this society. In this backdrop wild & wrong assumptions and misplaced fears like Kannada losing prominence continue to be expressed by concerned authorities like the head of Kannada Abhivruddhi Praadhikara. All these surveys and their results - confirming that more than 17 out of 20 Benglurians listening in public (FM, for instance), talking in public (FM, again), and reading papers are plugged in to Kannada - seem to be falling on closed eyes of responsible people. Is it time for them to wake up yet?


PS: One fairly reasonable assumption made in the calculations here is no overlap of readers of two newspapers, thereby making the AIRs of two newspapers linearly additive in nature.

"Your Actors are Unethical. Come watch Hindi movies" : Indian English Media?

During the recently climaxed Nikhita-ban episode in Kannada Film Market someone wrote "But it is also a fact that kannada film industry needs serious overhauling and crass cinema needs to be rooted out!". True. And here's what I have to add at this juncture.

The English media in this country needs an overhaul too. Firstly of course on ethical grounds, and then on similar grounds where they owe their responsibility towards their readers and towards general public welfare.

Bollywood is mostly Indian English media's selling counter. Bollywood is predominantly where women are portrayed more naked than any other "*woods" in India. That means more page-3 stuff for these brokers of lewdity & voyeurism, and this stuff only attracts more people to walk-in naked into their subsequent page-3s - Which explains the repetitive Hindi sloganeering by the back-end teams of these news 'makers'. Kissa-kursi-ka, Silsila, Pati-patni-aur-woh - these are the punchlines the purported English media employs to sell their cheap news items. 

So much held up with Bollywood and its accompanying vulgarity (conveniently renamed as cool & hot based on context!) is this inefficient English media that they hardly ever have spare time on the other *woods, also benefited by portraying Bollywood as the movie-wood of the entire nation. Thereby solemnizing their neglect towards other language movie industries.

So when there's some sensation (like the Nikhita ban) happening around Sandalwood, say, this English media doesn't blink an eyelid before pouring all of its karmas on Sandalwood and trying to suck out any remnant of an intention in people to watch Kannada movies. It does its best to defame Sandalwood in the already rendered semi-liquid minds of Sandalwood cine-goers.

But the same media family doesn't find value in sensationalizing the equally undemocratic dubbing ban that has been stinking in Karnataka since decades. Not a word of opposition or a paragraph of reporting, nor a column of news, and surely not a blog or an essay about the industry features in their dailies. 

Doesn't it all expose the English media's lackluster attitude towards the welfare and entertainment needs of its audience in Karnataka? This episode of Nikhita-ban has only brought to light in front of Kannadigas that the English media just doesn't care a damn for what Kannada movies mean to Kannadigas or what Kannada itself should mean to Kannadigas; all it is bothered about is carving out the cheapest tunnel to traffic Kannada cine-goers away from Sandalwood towards Bollywood - its selling counter - obviously something that will push its bottom-line upward.

Turning a blind eye to the diversity in its audience has probably brought short-term benefits to the English Media in this country. Short-term. Yet, unfortunate.