The escalating dispute between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh concerning the Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project, highlighting key arguments, political dynamics, and potential implications.
Summary:
A significant "fresh row has erupted between Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh over the Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project," which
aims to divert 200 tmc ft of Godavari water to drought-hit Rayalaseema in
Andhra Pradesh. This project has ignited a multi-faceted dispute rooted in
riparian rights, inter-state water sharing agreements, political blame games,
and federal funding controversies. Telangana's ruling Congress and opposition
BRS both contend the project violates their "riparian rights regarding
Godavari waters as well as the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
2014," while Andhra Pradesh, supported by the Central government, argues
for the necessity of the project due to surplus Godavari water. The Centre's
willingness to fund 50% of the project, estimated at ₹80,000 crore, and allow
borrowing beyond FRBM limits for Andhra Pradesh, has further exacerbated
tensions with Telangana, which faced borrowing restrictions for its own
Kaleshwaram project.
Main Themes and Key Ideas/Facts:
1.
The Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project:
- Purpose: To
divert "200 tmc ft of Godavari water to the Krishna and Penna
basins" to provide "drinking and irrigation water to the
drought-hit Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh."
- Status:
Andhra Pradesh has submitted a pre-feasibility report, and the Central
Water Commission (CWC) has requested a Detailed Project Report (DPR).
- Cost
& Funding: Estimated at "₹80,000 crore,"
with the Centre offering to fund "50% of the total cost...as part of
the interlinking of rivers." The remaining will be financed
"through borrowing beyond the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
(FRBM) limits."
1.
Telangana's Objections and Concerns:
- Violation
of Riparian Rights: Both the Congress and BRS in
Telangana believe the project "violates the State’s riparian rights
regarding Godavari waters as well as the provisions of Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2014."
- Historical
Precedent/Concerns: Former Minister T. Harish Rao
alleged Andhra Pradesh was "conspiring to divert Godavari waters to
claim rights on it in the future by seeking re-allocation of water by the
Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal." He drew parallels to the
"late Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy [who] had diverted Krishna waters from
Srisailam to the non-basin (Penna) areas."
- Inconsistency
in Water Availability Arguments: The BRS questioned
Andhra Pradesh's claim of ample Godavari water, asking "why the
Andhra Pradesh government had objected to the Kaleshwaram project if ample
water was indeed available in the Godavari."
- Demands
for Equitable Treatment: The Telangana Retired
Engineers’ Association suggested the Centre "carry out the
appraisal...only after protecting the rights of the people of Telangana by
giving permissions/clearances/approvals to all the ongoing and
contemplated projects in the Godavari basin." They also suggested
"the Centre additionally allocate more than 200 tmc ft of water in
the Krishna basin in lieu of the diversion of Godavari water to other
basins."
1.
Andhra Pradesh's Justification:
- Essential
Project: Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu
"emphasised that the project is essential."
- Surplus
Water Argument: Naidu argues "that the Godavari has
ample surplus water," questioning "why Telangana should object
to the use of water that was anyway flowing into the sea."
1.
Political Dynamics and Blame Games:
- Inter-Party
Blame in Telangana: The Congress and BRS are
"blaming each other for 'allowing' Andhra Pradesh to plan the
project."
- Congress's
Argument: Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy and
Irrigation Minister N. Uttam Kumar Reddy blamed the "previous BRS
government," citing the September 21, 2016, apex council meeting
where then CM K. Chandrasekhar Rao stated "3,000 tmc ft of Godavari
water discharges into the sea on average annually and could instead be
utilised if there was an 'understanding' between the two States."
- BRS's
Counter-Argument: The BRS countered that Mr. Rao
"raised objections over the diversion of water from the Godavari to
the Krishna without prior consultation of Telangana" during the same
meeting. T. Harish Rao accused the Congress of a "soft approach"
and "mortgaging of Telangana’s water rights," calling it
"Mr. Revanth Reddy’s ‘gurudakshina’ to his political mentor N.
Chandrababu Naidu."
- BJP's
Silence and Centre-State Alignment: The Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) in Telangana "has remained largely silent," likely
because the "BJP government at the Centre has the support of the
Telugu Desam Party, the ruling party of Andhra Pradesh." This
alignment, Telangana believes, gives Andhra Pradesh "the advantage of
getting things done with quick approvals from the Centre."
1.
Central Government's Role and Perceived
Bias:
- Funding
Discrepancy: Telangana is upset because the Centre
"reduced the State’s borrowing limits under the FRBM Act citing the
State’s off-budget borrowings to complete the Kaleshwaram project on
time," while offering favorable terms (50% funding, beyond FRBM borrowing)
to Andhra Pradesh for the new project.
- Call
for Unbiased Approach: The source explicitly states,
"The Centre would do well to be as unbiased as possible when dealing
with inter-State water disputes," recognizing that
"Water-sharing is a sensitive issue and is linked to the economy and
regional sentiments."
Conclusion:
The Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project has become a
flashpoint for long-standing inter-state water disputes, compounded by
accusations of political opportunism and central government favoritism. The
core of the dispute lies in Telangana's assertion of its riparian rights and
equitable water sharing, contrasting with Andhra Pradesh's claim of utilizing
surplus Godavari water for regional development. The Centre's financial support
and perceived alignment with Andhra Pradesh have further fueled Telangana's resentment,
underscoring the urgent need for an impartial and comprehensive resolution
mechanism. Failure to address these concerns judiciously could escalate
regional tensions and have significant socio-economic implications.
No comments:
Post a Comment