Levels of mediation

In ‘The roots of the Cauvery crisis’ (September 23), Nilanjan Ghosh has said I favoured “a decentralised approach towards resolution by vesting more powers lower down”. He has described the history of the dispute and correctly stated the principles of water-sharing, now established in the Dublin Protocol. In the report, I had suggested a variant of the Mekong formula for resolution of the dispute. This was not a decentralised approach. It provides for three levels: disputes are resolved first at the level of operators of the system, that is irrigation engineers, etc. They are then settled in the ministry of water resources with Central and State level officials. If this does not work, the dispute goes to the highest level with the PM and CMs.

This system worked in the Mekong valley where nations at war were able to share the water and provide for minimal flow in the post-monsoon period in the Tonle Sap which has half a million inhabitants. Also upstream arrangements were suitably modified, including scaling down of dams as suggested by Kanwar Sain. This system worked for many years in the Cauvery. There was no violence although tension was there. This year, the second level has taken the call. Karnataka now wants the Prime Minister to take the call. We can only wait and see.

Yoginder K Alagh

New Delhi

Karnataka’s decision not to release water is not an act of defiance. It is an expression of utter helplessness. Once there is enough inflow, Tamil Nadu will get its legitimate share. If this is considered contempt of court, the State will face the consequences.

Venugopal Chakravarty

Bengaluru

Giving RBI solidity

With reference to ‘Centre appoints 3 scholars to RBI monetary policy panel’ (September 23), it is heartening to learn that the Centre has appointed three eminent academicians as members to the newly constituted MPC.

There are enough indications that there will be a break from the RBI's long-held stance of maintaining a status quo on interest rates. It’s interesting that the new appointees are there for four years whereas the new governor of the RBI has been appointed for three!

Vinayak G

Bengaluru

This formalises and professionalises the existing Technical Advisory Committee which has been advising the governor. The present arrangement unburdens the governor from individual responsibility in decisions on monetary policy and makes the MPC more relevant. The constitution of the MPC sends out a clear signal that the Centre is serious about retaining RBI’s status as an expert professional body.

MG Warrier

Mumbai

Interesting reading

‘Pros and cons of advancing budget date’ by Gautam Sen (September 23) was a sagacious article. Advancing presentation of the Budget to January is a pragmatic move. All the departments will be in a better position to plan their expenditure and operate with a clean slate from April. In addition, integrating the railway budget with the general budget is a good exercise.

RK Sridharan

Chennai

Effective move

With reference to the editorial, ‘Merged tracks’ (September 23), there is great merit in merging the railway budget with the Union budget. It is important to find ways and means of increasing operational efficiency with minimal cost thereby increasing the outlays for capital expenditure.

Never before has the railway ministry been as active as it is today. Advancing the budget date will aid in planning more effectively.

Srinivasan Umashankar

Nagpur

The specific reasons for merging the budgets have not been spelt out. Are railway finances in a perilous condition or is it that successive budget allocations are not utilised as promised? Advancing the presentation of the budget seems to be a good idea. Sufficient allocation of funds to the railways is a challenge.

TSN Rao

Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh

COMMENT NOW