Mr Thakkar's article is not comprehensive. The Tribunal tried to do its best under the given circumstances. Tamil Nadu has strong reasons to feel dissatisfied over the verdict. Unlike the Narmada and Godavari tribunals, the Cauvery tribunal did not protect the existing irrigated area. As a result, Tamil Nadu has to forego Cauvery water for at least three lakh acres. This is not fair because it was this State that was one of the favoured regions in the country in 1950s and 1960s to step up foodgrain production under the programme of "Grow More Food." One major factor then was that the authorities realised that the foodgrain production could be increased substantially even with the existing infrastructure. As regards the quantity of water released to Tamil Nadu since the 1991 interim order, it is oversimplification to go by the total annual releases made by Karnataka. The Tribunal, both in its interim and final orders, drew up the schedule for water release. This was because of water requirements of farmers in Tamil Nadu. In 10 out of 16 years since 1991, Karnataka did not release water as stipulated by the Tribunal during the period of southwest monsoon, which does not benefit Tamil Nadu as the State happens to be in the rain-shadow region. One can go on listing how the final order does not favour Tamil Nadu much. But, those who believe in rule of law will not go on complaining.
