"Give And Take Is The Solution"

Why did Karnataka agree to release the water despite the fact that the Prime Minister's decision was perceived as unjust, considering the water levels in Karnataka's reservoirs?

The Supreme Court passed an order requesting the Prime Minister to mediate on the tribunal's direction to Karnataka to release 11 tmc ft of water. And the Prime Minister in his wisdom gave a decision that 6 tmc ft of water be released. The decision had two aspects to it. Not only did the Prime Minister order the release of 6 tmc ft of water but he also gave a written assurance that the Government of India is prepared to finalise in February national water policy guidelines to share inter-state waters. Karnataka has always been demanding the formulation of national water policy guidelines and when this demand was met, we could not accept just one aspect of the decision and reject the other (to release water). How could we lose this opportunity when the promise was made in writing?

The Supreme Court is expected to hear in February Tamil Nadu's plea to set up committees to implement and monitor the 205 tmc ft interim award Karnataka has constantly opposed. Did you agree with the Prime Minister's decision to preclude the court's decision?

We will never agree to the setting up of these committees till a final award is given. We will plead before the Supreme Court that when the Government of India has decided to frame the national water policy guidelines within a specific time-frame,the question of our agreeing to a monitoring committee is ruled out.

Was this the compelling reason for agreeing to the Prime Minister's decision?

Yes, it certainly was.

There is a feeling that the Prime Minister's decision was forced by his political compulsions. Do you agree with this belief?

Why do you attribute such motives to the Prime Minister when he was not directly involved in the issue? I don't want to draw such conclusions. It is improper to do so.

Won't the release of water create problems in Karnataka in the short term?

Yes, my farmers may have to face some problems. But at the same time I cannot lose this opportunity. Which is why the all-party meetings in the state discussed the issue for two days and ultimately decided that we should cooperate with the Prime Minister. Also, at some stage this problem should be sorted out through negotiations. Legal merits and demerits are not the solution to the problem. A give-and-take policy has to be followed.

But more than 25 rounds of talks have been held between the chief ministers of the two states in over two decades and no breakthrough could be made.

There were no guidelines then and no effort was made to formulate the guidelines. There is a new opportunity available now as the Union water resources minister stated in the conference of irrigation ministers of states that the national water policy guidelines would be framed shortly. And now the Prime Minister himself has given a written assurance.

The formulation of the guidelines is expected to be time-consuming.

It has been assured that the formulation will take two months. Let it take even four months until the tribunal can defer its proceedings. The heavens won't fall down.

You have been very keen to rope in the AIADMK led by Jayalalitha into the National Front before the Lok Sabha elections. Will you continue your efforts in this regard?

It is for higher bodies such as the Political Affairs Committee and other senior leaders to take a decision.

But you are a member of the PAC.

I'll confine myself to sorting out the problems of the state.