Bengaluru’s reputation of being a peaceful city to do business in has been dented by a prolonged disruption of normal activity, and an extraordinary outbreak of arson and unrest. Following last week’s bandh call over the Supreme Court’s ruling to release 15,000 cusecs of water for 10 days to Tamil Nadu, the city erupted into flames on Monday as the court reduced the quantum of water release to 12,000 cusecs but extended the period, rejecting Karnataka’s plea. The violence, which mercifully did not target people as such, came across as both orchestrated and spontaneous. That the arson continued for a day all the way to Mysuru with the police largely looking on suggests that the State government was reluctant to intervene. It must explain why it took nearly 24 hours to act. While the Karnataka chief minister and home minister have appealed for peace and displayed restraint in their statements (agreeing to respect the Supreme Court’s order and hoping to succeed in its petition against the 2007 tribunal award), they could have done better. In fact, the same can be said of BJP’s central minister from Tamil Nadu P Radhakrishnan, who clearly failed to overcome parochial considerations in urging the Karnataka government to protect Tamils in the State. This is not the first time that parochialism has reared its head in Bengaluru, Chennai and elsewhere. The violence that wracked Bengaluru in 1991, in the wake of the Cauvery tribunal’s interim award, took 20 lives and led to an exodus of Tamils. The river basin generally erupts when rains fall short in Karnataka, with cynical politics playing itself out in both States. But in globally integrated, IT-driven south India, political brinkmanship can have larger repercussions. Bengaluru’s image as an ‘always on’ 24X7 technology hub has been dented, and Bengaluru-based IT companies have suffered heavy financial and reputational damage with their global clients. The US has even issued an advisory cautioning its citizens in the city. Such developments harm the city’s prospects as an investment destination.
In this charged scenario, the Supreme Court too could have done better than merely reprimand Karnataka for being averse to releasing more water. It should, in fact, have allowed itself more time to assess the nuances of the situation, urging the Cauvery Monitoring Committee to maintain and furnish the relevant data on water use and flows from time to time. The tribunal’s assumptions on water availability underlying its final award may require a relook in order to arrive at a durable solution.
Civil society too must play a role in bridging the communication gap between communities, like the Cauvery Family comprising farmers’ groups and eminent citizens from both States attempted in the 1990s. Central to the Cauvery dispute, and missing from the discourse, is the need to protect the river itself and move towards sustainable urban planning and cropping. These issues must be debated to arrive at institutionalised solutions. Brand Bengaluru, and Brand India, deserve better.