The Inclusiveness Story told on The Rapid Indian Railways

THE RECENTLY concluded 57th National Development Council witnessed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh noting some of his observations about inclusiveness in the Indian union. Going forward he noted that,

Rapid growth also contributes directly to inclusiveness because it provides greater access to income and employment opportunities. Policies aimed at stimulating growth in agriculture and in medium and small industries, combined with steps to promote education and skill development, will produce a growth process which is inherently more inclusive.

Rapid growth, as noted above, plays a vital role in achieving higher inclusiveness indeed. But the reason growth has to be rapid in order to achieve inclusiveness is that the whole process of inclusiveness, at a larger scale, is all about a race - race towards modernization, towards beating the one ahead of you. However, at an 'India' scale, which is large enough too, the race is towards relative modernization, and a race towards beating the State ahead of yours.

Competition is the essence of this race, and the Indian union has to allow this race to take place between Indian States. It cannot take part in the race as a proxy to the non-performing States, perhaps only to disprove the classical allegation that the the rich States got richer and the poor States got poorer. The central government need only be a neutral arbiter to ensure a fair race for all States, and perhaps protect, within reasonable limit, the interest of our States from out-of-scale competition from beyond the national borders. It is sad however, that the very existence of the Planning Commission and its modus operandi look oriented in such fashion so as to make Government of India (GoI) not only a lone proxy for all non-performing states, but also dictate terms of the race altogether! This is not only driving our States into a wrong race, but also jeopardizing their chances of winning the real race.

Railways Overloaded by being Indian?

There are many parameters that act as enablers for each competitor in this race. Today, most such parameters are either directly or indirectly controlled by the GoI. Take the railways for instance. It is shocking to know that the GoI has only added about 15% of rail lines in the last 62 years after having inherited the rest 85%. Railways, that have triggered rapid growth in many countries worldwide, have failed to do the magic in India, thanks to such a bulky administrative and governance juggernaut it is after being centralized in the hands of the GoI.

A general look at the pace at which railway projects are undertaken in India explains how railways could even be having a degenerative effect on growth. Specifically, this example of a railway line doubling between the cities of Mysore and Bangalore initially slated to take 24 months now remains doubtful of completion even after 42 months, quoting petty operational flaws as reasons:

However, if the state government hands over land in Mandya, Maddur and Srirangapatna, the work of electrification and doubling could be completed within six months, he added.

A perfect case for decentralization - Railways remains an unquestioned union list item and the States feature in the deal only when they have to part with their capital and revenue assets in the national interest of laying 10000 kms of railway lines in 62 long years! If that speaks about the inability of a central government in using railways to rapidly grow a vast diverse nation like India, the disturbing skew in delivery, of electrified rail in this case, between different States of India speaks for states like Karnataka and Gujarat that are begging for more efficient (electrified) mode of railway transport.

In a decentralized state of existence, each state would have paved its desirable set of internal rail network, meetings its own needs of rapid growth and competing at the global level.

Overall, it would be an over simplification of the inclusiveness problem to believe there can be one central authority (call it the Planning Commission) making an inclusiveness plan for entire of India. Development of this country is necessarily a cooperative endeavor involving the private and public sectors. Hence, it is important that the central government realizes that a cooperative endeavor cannot be undertaken with a hierarchical master-slave engagement between Central & State governments. The goal of future NDCs had better be to foster a peer relation between the governments and create a decentralized environment for this partnership to achieve rapid growth.

(Previous post in this sequence: Moving the BIMARU under a Shining Skin)

Moving the BIMARU under a Shining Skin

(pic: hindubusinessline.com)

IN his speech addressing the 57th National Development Council meeting of Chief Ministers from various Indian states, PM Dr Manmohan Singh yesterday (Dec 27 2012) made some observations of the state of affairs in the nation. Right from the fact that the invited Chief Ministers were not allotted enough time to speak it was clear how unmanageable and unfruitful any such conglomerate would be in this vastly diverse nation.

Among other things that he read out at this annual meeting, which is a brainchild of the Planning Commission of India, the Prime Minister (its chairman) morphed available data into potential dire situations, thereby passing subtle threats to the state Chief Ministers, and openly communicated the helpless stance the Government of India (GoI) might have to take in such situations. With such a choice of words the PM has both, taken up responsibilities that he need not (we'll come to that later), and dared the state CMs that he could pull the carpet beneath, leaving the states with very little scope to innovate, perform and deliver to people belonging to their states. By doing so, the PM, representing the GoI indirectly assumes sole responsibility of the people of each state, bypassing the state governments, and thereby violates the very federal spirit this nation would like to adopt in its democracy.

An excerpt of Dr Manmohan Singh's speech goes like this:

While we need to accelerate growth, we do not view growth as an end in itself. Our real objective must be to improve the condition of lives of the aam aadmi, which is why we emphasise that growth must be inclusive.

There are two reasons why rapid growth is necessary to achieve greater inclusiveness. First, it is necessary to generate the revenues to finance our many programmes of inclusiveness. If growth slows down, neither the States nor the Centre will have the resources needed to implement inclusiveness programmes. We will either be forced to cut these programmes, or be pushed into tolerating a higher fiscal deficit, which will have other negative consequences.

As we shall see in the parts to follow this post, the GoI headed by the PM must realize that in a federal democratic set up, delegation of responsibility of governance is from the states toward the center and not vice-versa. Meaning, the center cannot assume every responsibility there is, and then devolve them to the states to tackle. For instance, in a truly federal set up the states need not, and cannot afford to, give up the task of increasing inclusiveness to the center. Given the amount of diversity in the nation, in various walks of life, the role of GoI should be limited to understanding the fact that achieving inclusiveness at a national level is not the way to go at all, and in turn support policy making at state-level to enhance inclusiveness within each state. Any attempts made at the national level in this regard will only roll on the title of BIMARU states from one pack to another! In fact this very phenomenon of moving the BIMARU underneath a "shining India" has perhaps been wrongly interpreted by the PM in the same speech:

States that used to grow slowly in earlier periods have done much better. The average growth rate of the five poorest states exceeds the national average for the first time in any Plan period. I think we may be reaching the stage when the term “BIMARU States” can be relegated to history.

What can be relegated to history and what is indeed running the risk of getting relegated to history, and other analyses will be seen in following posts.

Anatomy of a Rape: Sponsored Crime and Consumer Awareness

LATELY, watching TV at home has become synonymous to watching 'public undressing' performances like this, this, and this (among many others) most of the time. TV today is giving birth to more voyeurs in this society than anything else ever did. It is sad that creativity has lost all its colors and reserved itself to blue!

Sponsored by Lewd Entertainers?

Snapshot of a disturbing AD

With advertisements restricted to 20% of the TV airtime per-hour, advertisers are pushed to the limit of retaining viewer attention, and resorting to 'public undressing' seems to be their way-out?! Watching these lewd visuals have gradually come to being an acceptable ritual in the living room. What used to be earlier a taboo to even talk about has suddenly become the tea-time pastime for a good portion of the TV market. And this very society is now plagued by rapes & other heinous crimes. These behavior changes sponsored by the market forces are not doing any good to us at all.

Daring Questions, But...
Clearly, as a society, you cannot undress in public (on- or off-screen) and not be plagued by crime at the same time! We've got to choose between these two. There's absolutely no logic in daring the opposite sex by taking them to the limit of hormonal tests by means of these public undressing performances. Likewise there's no logic in questioning the integrity of people when there's no way of separating the ones with integrity from the ones without it. It is enough trouble if each city has one rapist at large. But on similar lines demanding capital punishment to anyone that commits this crime, however heinous, doesn't help alleviate the problem. A judicial precedent means nothing for a mind that is weak enough to become criminal.

The Whole Anatomy
Rapid, unplanned and unsustainable urbanization has triggered unforeseen migration at national levels, leading to unhealthy inter-personal relations in an otherwise well-connected society, also causing a perceivable plummet in average moral values among dwellers. Viral consumerism, considered quintessential to running any urbanized settlement, has blinded the average citizen to the ill-effects of such sponsored behavior changes in a society. The aberration between market and society faced by common man makes him miss the big picture - that he is being modified (from within) in the pretext of being captured better by market forces. Even to the extent of approving the inappropriate and making their societies breeding grounds for criminals.

Although a weird one, this is a comparison I find convincing always - crime is like a river, with not a single clear source of its birth, innumerable tributaries contributing to its growth, all headed towards one common destination: an out-pour of the darkness out of oneself. This state-of-mind called crime cannot be culled by an act of law, instead it should be culled by an act of collective conscious minds. In fact drawing from experiences of various people in the same society, it can even be deduced that penal laws constructed out of similar compelling situations (viz., Sec 498A IPC) have only jeopardized harmony in the society and paved new avenues for corruption of the human mind. Like it is said, in the case of Sec 498A, it has heralded new ways of exposing the lowest levels of the executive & judiciary to corruption, who had been deprived of the benefits of erstwhile penal laws.

Hence, in the interest of public welfare, it would be prudent of the youth to not take up the cudgels for compelling the legislature to play a blind-game. Instead the same youth had rather display their collective sense and strength in warding off spirits in the market that, in the name of consumerism, convince people to even approve vulgarity such as 'public undressing'. Being a better informed customer is as important today as being a better informed citizen. Let us not build unnecessary fortresses of legislation when we can prevent such a need by being a better informed customer.

Rape, Crime, Decentralized Democracy & The Sarojini Mahishi Report

Circle of Federalism?

IF CRIME in general and rape cases in particular are on the rise in Delhi & other north Indian regions, the best way to protect women in other states (viz. Karnataka) is to closely monitor and reasonably control migration of people from Delhi & other north Indian regions into other states. Even while not curtailing what is popularly perceived as a fundamental right in India (to be able to migrate and settle anywhere in this country,) this measure will greatly help local authorities to plan development programs within the state, track settlement of migrants in host state and make sure migrants do not resort to unlawful activities. Had this been in place already, we would have had far lesser incidents like this one, this one, or may be this one...

If all the waves created by the media around this story serve as a cue to any government, it is the state government (Govt of Karnataka for instance) and these state governments urgently need to wake up to their real job of protecting their state and the state's interests.

For starters, here's a list of things each state government could do in the interest of common welfare, and prevention of migrant related crimes:

1. Demanding education back into state list of items.
• After all it is education, or the lack of it, that is leading people to commit crimes. 
• Education being in the concurrent list, and with an ill-equipped central government at the helm of education affairs in the entire nation, employment & economic disparities are easy consequences.
• This in turn leads to social disparity driving the social awareness disparity quotient high.
2. Demand decentralization of Railways - one of the major carriers of migrants across this country.
• Although not the reason for migration themselves, in the hands of a central govt. the railways are an easy pawn for interested parties to create vote banks out of potentially migration oriented peoples.
• When decentralized and handed over to state governments, railway policies will be governed by the respective state and its usage for induced, as well as uncontrolled migration will be curtailed.
3. The labour ministry at the center needs to be dissolved or diluted to have lesser jurisdiction and control than now, and lesser control than the states.
• Each state needs to be the ultimate point of control and legislation when it comes to labour laws and settling of labour disputes.
• Owing to this ministry being currently held by the center, the labour laws relating to various industries uphold homogenization across boundaries of labour market, and in process encourage excessive migration across the country.
• Proper installation of and enforcement as per Sarojini Mahishi Report (vote) will limit unnecessary migration of people into its state.

The points go on, and is not limited to the list above. Revolutionary changes such as these are not easy achievements and certainly not feasible achievements for political parties that have conflicting interests within and outside of the state. At political crossroads, a state with weaker political lobby always ends up losing the battle and thereby its interests. The dire need for all states that are part of this union is therefore an urgent up-rise of (regional) political parties that understand democracy and the urgent need to usher in federal forces to save this democracy from internal plunder.

Is Karnataka also being Telanganaad?

Karnataka Districts Map @ 2008
(Courtesy: Karnataka State Election Commission)

The Constitution of India appoints the Parliament with a right by law to edit the boundaries of the states that constitute this union called India. Part I (The Union and its Territory) of this constitution features an Article (Art. 3) stated thus:

3. Parliament may by law—
(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
(c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) alter the name of any State:
[Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States 1***, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of  that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.]

After re-reading the above Article, a point that intrigues me in hindsight is why did the GoK invite the PoI Mr Pranab to inaugurate the Suvarna Vidhana Soudha built recently in Belgaavi, a district in north Karnataka? Was it a cue to impress upon him to refer to the GoK seeking its opinion about a reorganization of the Karnataka state? Is this some sort of collusion happening between the two otherwise rival national political parties in the country? Have they come to see a common political gain as their 'fortune to be won' at the end of this division? Is Karnataka also being Telanganaad?

(to be continued...)

Sandalwood, you have a Missing Link!

Sandalwood: Missing a key link!

Mr Prakash Belawadi, a renowned name in Kannada cinema and among social think tanks yesterday critiqued a recent Bangalore Mirror article titled The Economics of Dubbing. A critique well done, no doubt. But if this has to help anyone at all, that better be the end consumer of entertainment content in the Kannada Film Market (KFM).

The statistics Mr Belawadi cites is pretty straight, in that the entire Indian film market is soon going to be worth 5 billion USD and that KFI's share in that is fast dwindling. He goes on to quote that -

The Kannada film industry needs to tune in to the new age or be politely requested to drop out.

While his observations are true, the perspective in Mr Belawadi's analysis is limited to the making half in a film ecosystem. KFI, in need for an overhaul, needs to focus on the consuming half and critics such as Mr Belawadi would be better off addressing that perspective. Mr Belawadi notes that -

The average Kannadiga avoids our commercial cinema not because she lacks self-esteem but rather that she has too much of it. It is only because we love our culture so much that we shun our cinema.

but fails to elaborate the subtle need for a consumer of Kannada cinema to not shun Kannada cinema but choose various degrees of participation in the feedback mechanism. The critique misses to mention the urgent need to establish feedback mechanisms in the KFM, which could actually serve a great deal in ensuring the KFI produces what the KFM has been craving for! Outcomes of such mechanisms stand as solid proofs of concept for innovative entertainment business models, like dubbing, and also as attractive presentation of KFI as a profitable destination for investors. Expert analysts and thinkers like Mr Belawadi are expected to advocate proliferation of such market survey engines in the KFM.

Apart from deriving meaning out of what audiences are thinking, such survey systems will also add to the volume of people speaking about Kannada cinema, which is less heard if not muted today. If consumers are shunning commercial Kannada movies, that's a feedback no doubt, but that's not sufficient feedback, especially when some seniors in the industry use a flopped film to blame their audiences! The Kannadiga cine-goer needs to be heard. The cine-goers' demand for better entertainment in their own language must be met, agnostic of its maker. 

With a tough customer around, any industry will correct itself if it wants to remain worthy of business. The contemporary rowdy voices rising repeatedly against a legal market innovation called dubbing (in Kannada) will be forced to face the reality with such surveys and this will pave way for a cleaner KFM and thereby a more profitable KFI. We have to find this missing link, and we need everyone to look for it.

(Related read: The Gumma-nomics of Dubbing)

Wrong Statistics and The Gumma-nomics of Dubbing

This article in yesterday's Bangalore Mirror laid out a laundry list of so-called deterrents to dubbing in Kannada. Owing to the nature and presentation of its contents, this article sent out two messages - One that Sandalwood (KFI i.e.), as it stands today, is pure crap and people who'd like to come and invest & innovate in this industry had rather stay away or brace for super-losses. Another, that regardless of its lossy-by-design nature, the dubbing industry seems to be a threat to KFI! Seems like a big gumma (ghost in children's parlance) is running the KFI, not its talent or business acumen.

What this article does is take media rights beyond imaginable boundaries and use statistics, however unsupported, to project a notion that is deeply embedded in the minds of a few people in the KFI, and perhaps another few programmed souls in other quarters. In saying that -

The film industry has steeled itself against the onslaught of a ‘consumer group’ which is demanding dubbed content in Kannada, especially films.

and from the way it is said, the this article seems to be a mouthpiece of the anti-dubbing squad within KFI. But this very statement is so irrational with respect to the functioning of an industry. If a consumer group has been demanding dubbed film content in Kannada, is it wise for the film industry to consider it as onslaught and 'steel' itself against it?


Even if one were to momentarily accept the statistics presented in this article, isn't this 'steeling' of the industry against a consumer group (among its audiences) enough evidence for the claimed minuscule share of Kannada movies in the film market in a Kannada state? Here're some interesting anti-statistics:

1. If 9 out of 27 lakh theater-goers in Karnataka watch Kannada movies, and the other 18 lakh watch non-Kannada movies, market wisdom lies in figuring ways to attract those people towards Kannada movies again, not in blindly disowning those 18 lakh cine-goers as non-Kannadigas and mentally shrink one's own Total Available Market. 
2. It is also a true businessman's interest to see why, among 6-crore people that live in this state, only 27 lakh people (a disappointing 5%) are being captured in the film market. A careful observation reveals that a good portion of contemporary movies of KFI are remakes of movies people have already watched in other languages, and another portion of KFI made movies are deprived of screens because those theaters have very little Kannada movie choice to choose from, or yield to immense pressure from a deluge of non-Kannada movies ready to fill the gap created because of a dysfunctional image of KFI projected by itself.
3. That 50 lakh Rupees is what dubbing rights of a non-Kannada movie costs, and that 5 crore Rupees is the minimal expense of making an original Kannada movie (or even a remake), and given that the current annual revenue of the latter is just 100 crores with at least 100 movies made every year, makes dubbing of films into Kannada surely more profitable to investors than movies being Made in KFI today. Besides, it is what the people from 'consumer groups' are demanding.
4. If movies of other languages can grab 120 screens across Karnataka on the first day of their global release, and corner nearly 66% of Kannada audience, it only goes to show the command non-Kannada movies have come to hold over an otherwise Kannada movie-going audience. The reasons for such success is a shameful combination of KFI's lackluster market behavior and a daring act of entrepreneurship performed by non-Kannada film businessmen.
5. The general expectation of movie audiences always follows the best entertainer, and hence the expectation of Kannada cine-goers has outgrown the KFI itself. The time-warped KFI standards is perhaps the reason for this. But the steeling of KFI against consumer demand is portrayal of its inability to meet growing audience expectations, and display of arrogance in the form a cold-ban on dubbing. 

At this juncture, the non-Kannada movie revenue model is worth imitating for KFI, with revenues from multiple platforms like Internet, TV, Mobile and other conventional media like CD/DVD being exploited to their limits. The best way to react is to mimic, yet compete. The way to handle the evolving consumer need would have been to not oppose dubbing but embrace it in this liberal market and derive the same benefits that film industries of neighboring states have been deriving.


Lets not make belittling of ourselves the way of existence, and our ray of hope in the market. If actress Tara, the current head of KCA (Kannada Chalanachitra Academy), had to reserve her stage-seat during the recently concluded GIM 2012 with a reason, the film industry that she belongs to must show some mettle and prove its business sense. If dubbing of movies into Kannada is such a loss making business, why fear the gumma; just mind your business.

(Related read: A Dubbed audience and the suspicion around Dubbing)

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, 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.