Friday Review
Bangalore
Chennai and Tamil Nadu
Delhi
Hyderabad
Thiruvananthapuram
The highs and lows
|
A book on the river Cauvery which sees hope only in out of court settlement
|
Kaveri: Ondu chimmu ondu horalu
By Sheshanarayana
Bhagyalakshmi Prakashana, Rs. 160
Cauvery, otherwise a boon for the people of Karnataka and Tamilnadu has also been a bone of contention between the two states, since centuries. This has assumed ugly proportions after the constitution of Cauvery Tribunal in 1990. The Tribunal gave it
s final verdict on February 5, 2007, full 17 years after its constitution. But still, it is one such tribunal whose proceedings and final judgment is resented by all the warring parties. “Kaveri: Ondu Chimmu Ondu Horalu” by senior writer Sheshanarayana is the second updated edition of the book originally published in 2002, before the final verdict of the Tribunal was pronounced. Barring one or two exceptions like those published by the Karnataka Jana Para Vedike (“Kaveri Vivada: Karanatakakkada anyayavenu? Pariharavenu?- Ondu Charitrika Mattu Vaijnanika Adhyayana”) in April 2007, there are hardly any books in Kannada which attempts to analyse the issue and propose democratic, scientific and feasible solutions.
Sheshanarayana, a senior and committed writer, who is well-versed with the language of the two States and their histories, has used it to his advantage in comprehending the real problem. In fact the book is published both in Kannada and Tamil. The book is an exhaustive journey of the river Cauvery along the contours of mythology, history and contemporary politics. The book has six sections and 32 chapters in total.
The basic argument of the author is that Tamilnadu has been traditionally a major beneficiary in the Cauvery river sharing. While the erstwhile Kannada kingdoms never objected to the maximum use of the river it is the Tamil rulers who had an objection to the minimal attempts by Karnataka to make use of the river Cauvery. Even the British, who had personal grievance against Tipu who remained a thorn in their onward march till his martyrdom in 1799, intentionally favoured Tamilnad much against the interests of Karnataka. The Cauvery river sharing agreements of 1892 and 1924 bear a testimony to this fact. Even the Tribunal award of 2007, is a continuation of old colonial legacy of using double standards in determining the needs and fixing the allocation of water. The author justifies his claims by referring to abundant statistics and international norms.
The author’s maturity in dealing with such emotional issues foregrounds in offering a solution to the impasse. He categorically rejects the Supreme Court road as solution and rightfully so. He suggests that it is only through a dialogue of concerned parties keeping petty political interests aside and giving a patient audience to others viewpoints and grievances, the problem will get resolved. Having said this one cannot ignore a rather ridiculous observation made by the author in analysing the issue. His claims that Kannada rulers were always generous to the Tamils and their water needs could be easily refuted.
Likewise, some of his cavalier political observations like equating bigger parties with wisdom and smaller and regional parties with narrow parochialism cannot be accepted. There are some racist observations by the author equating good looks to high values and vice-versa. Likewise, using the mythological examples to prove a historical point sounds absurd. For example, using the Tamil Brahminical origin of Agastya, husband of Cauvery, as the prime reason for the diversion of flow of Cauvery towards Tamilnadu is bizarre. In fact, these absurdities make the core argument of the book dubious.
Leafing Through is a fortnightly column that features Kannada books. Send in books to Friday Review, The Hindu, 19&21, Bhagwan Mahaveer Road, Bangalore 560001.
SHIVASUNDAR
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Friday Review
Bangalore
Chennai and Tamil Nadu
Delhi
Hyderabad
Thiruvananthapuram
|
