River Disputes, Development, Imperialism: A New Analysis Ramaswamy R. lyer INTERSTATE DISPUTES OVER KRISHNA WATERS: LAMY, SCIENCE AND IMPERIALISM By Racha D'Souze Greet -: zed mind, and a sriking originality of approach: s book gives evidence of scholarship in 2 rauliplic sn elsciplines, an of sure and sophistica- dhe caavas that th ips mals it eiffel for Berto jewer unpersucded ahaa River disputes, che saved ‘on p98. 1 whose primary 1s). Again, the continuum of imperialisen - the old cain the new ication of that wae, Sot asi ossices a a hinory oi Keisha waters. the thw seasoning Water Dispuscs hon us tia thesis tae neds 0 be cexpbiaol.Forh i ofthe M ie author makes extensive “contradictions” and xy conic, shor sans expanding all oned expositions, obliged co undertake some 0 establish dhean: point) sclf-evident, 1 ever longer. strenuous ang they aze not ( the Br Drder ideas ‘Woods fasiwions, she New World sal «0 08. On pp. 295-98 th ss showing the srwccures of ECOSOC UN ys shly begin co wonder whether he or Taso the wrong book. Cert “imperialisey in “imperialism! co do with in disputes in has sey ood wecsions, eat fi M, Forsters mach ‘Only sonncet” comes 10 mind. However, fied wich dhe labyrinthine poins of view and too crypt fom another. IF to the Kesha dispuues were ne books wil remain a enitgue of «da peliico-economic "“Theary og’. Even so, i eould perhaps be = general observations aside, 28 perspective wo che sated the manner by the KWDT Ie disputes is ery = ss dated abover bur chat is i's argument.) subjecr—the Krishna disputes Withour entesing invo & in whieh dhey were dealt wi The Book Review / January 2007 / 27 «+» after Section Il the book reverts to its larger concerns with only intermittent references to the Krishna disputes. ‘What then is the subject of the book? This is better indicated by the subtitle of the book. | is customary co regard Article 262 of the Con- | scitution and che fneer State Water Disputes Act | 1956 dsWD Act) as wise and useful eoaflce soluion mechanisms and commendable fearures of Indian federalism, The authos, how- ver is very critical of the adjudication process ‘on several incerconnected grounds; these are | commented upon belo: Further, the auhor | Hinks river-water projets as well as th idea of siver-basn planning co wha she refers to 25 the jnwermacional Development Project, which in turn she links with “postwar imperialism’. ‘One has considerable difiulry wih some of her formulations. Fest, in what sense are dispuues on the Cauvery, Krishna, ete, Instances of “colonial” conflcs becoming “developmental” ones, as she repeatedly argues? Cenzinly, they go back to colonial times, and | she disputancs were colonia! politcal entities; but what they were quarreling about was water, | laryely for ieigation, oF proposed interventions in the river. What die scates concerned are quar- reling about coda is also water for iesgaton and che adverse impacts of interventions: As for the term “developmental”, that word might not have been used in colonial times, bus dams and | barrages and other diversion structures began tO | be buile long ago: the Grand Anicur goes back Chola times, the medieval rulers in the north built canals, Merur and Krishna Raja Sagee swore bull in dhe ealyseeades of the 20ch y. and the Periyar dam was built over & century ago: would it be wally wrong to eal hem “developmental” in intention? Against shat background, how illuminating is i to talk bout colonial conflicts being turned into clevelopmental ones? Secondly, whatever the origins of the con- pt of “dependable Rows or the principle of | “equitable apportionment’, does it necessarily | follow thatthe application ofthese ideas in the adjudication process is undesirable? When two fo more sates ate quarreling about che use of the waters of a cver, a resolution has to be found and this can only be through some kind | of fishing (The era of jae | overated management has i own dng | tends cowards centralization and gigantism,) Is | eat” (forgetting its | history) another way of ying, “fir sharing”? | For arsving a fae sharing some mumbers are | needed, and that leads us to something like | “dependable flows"ics, whethed colonial period or latex, often arse from (planned or executed) major intervention rivers, and such interveations became possible wih dl 9friodcen (wescern) engineer Sng. Even if we had not bad a colonial hisory, modern engineeting would surely have enrered is nor eary to imagine the alkernative route that could have been taheo. (One withesthae the author Aad gone into chs, ‘Thirdly, the author's point that complex issues become attenuated when red y acquire legal complexities and convolu- Gions, but that is anocher matter) Hloweves, is this ru only of ive dspures Is ic nor tic of goes a cour of lew has mukiple dimensions and aspees, but whar ges presented, argied shout and finally secled there, is che legal aspecs and the author vl suely agree thar is an imporantaspoc. on important isthe authors pine chat the law (equitable ap snd science (hydrology, 75% dependable flows, ic) applied in the adjudication process are of western ofigin, and arose out of 3 history and neces that were far vemowed from the historical, social and cultural circumstances of his councry? This again is rue noe only about riverwatcr disputes bur also ahous everything lsc. The science that we learn is western legal system is western in origins | mode: our Constitution i aot bur based om dhe Govern the American Conatinution, That hiscory eannor now be changed. Could the Coasctuent Assembly have | by the Central Government is dae Narmada drafeed a whol ss Consticucion? tradition could chey have drawa upon: Hindu dharmasesras, or the systems and Whi necessary «© Iabour this point; the learned author needs no of the absious from this reviewer. The question is: docs adjudicacion under the ISWD Act specially invite der alien transplant shac did ave grow out of local | Blsory and eraditions? Is ic notin fact a inolfensive and perbays even benign transplanted system? ines of de vay perhaps | be mentionsd. On p 119, there isa reference | to “hydraulic societies; one wishes that ©" | unconscious echo of Wiefogel’s obfuscation had been avoided. On p. 264, ie might have bees usefil wo explain that che Stage I and Stage Weights referred to (494.252 and 509 metres) are clevations above mean sea level and not the hheghts of the dans themselves. On p. 281, the River Boards Act is referred to, but the fact that the Act has vireally been a dead lewer i aoe stated. On p, 282, the Narmada Valley Development Authority is mentioned: the body sandated by the Triounal’s Award and sec up Control Authority, and noc the NVDA. On | pp. 331-32, there is some confusion in the references to Articles 262 and 263. ‘As the reader would have noted, this reviewers response to the book is a combina- sion of admiration for «tour de force and resist anes ther argument, What is beyond quest ion is chat this book chars 2 new course that will have to be taken note of by all furure | seus on the subject, regardless of agreement | or disagreement with the author's thesis | ‘Ramaswamy R.lyers wih the Centre for Policy fesnarch, Now Gah a