Watch the full video (above) of the discussion on ‘Key Findings of the Status of Policing in India Report – A Study of Performance and Perceptions’, featuring Dr Vipul Mudgal and Prof Sanjay Kumar.
The Police is the most visible face of the State. Indian police forces are riddled with problems of corruption and misuse of authority, and are often seen as stooges of the parties in power. The idea of police reforms in India remain a distant reality as no action has been taken despite 12 years having passed since the landmark Supreme Court judgment of Prakash Singh vs Union of India. The police and paramilitary forces often seem to work as private armies of politicians and political parties in power across the ideological spectrum. Their writ seems to run everything from arrests to acquittals and from appointments to transfer and postings, irrespective of court orders and constitutional provisions.
The Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2018- A Study of Performance and Perceptions is one of the first attempts to scientifically study police performance and its interaction with the public. It is a rigorous study of the performance and perception of the police in India. It covers close to 16000 respondents in 22 states on parameters like citizens’ trust and satisfaction levels, discrimination against the vulnerable, police excesses, infrastructure, diversity in forces, state of prisons and disposal of cases etc.
Dr Vipul Mudgal is an activist, journalist and a media scholar. He is the Director and Chief Executive of Common Cause and also heads the Inclusive Media for Change. Prof Sanjay Kumar is currently the Director of The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS).
FULL VIDEO OF VALEDICTORY METAMORPHOSES SESSION
TECHNOLOGY
Watch the full video (above) of the valedictory session on ‘Information Technologies – Computing, Communications and Machine Intelligence: The Next Twenty Five Years’, featuring Arogyaswami Paulraj, as part of the ‘Metamorphoses-Talking Technology’ series.
We are at the dawn of a new era in Information Technologies, driven by the recent breakthroughs in Machine Intelligence, and supported by impressive advances in Computing and Communications. This talk outlined the history of Information Technology and its likely evolution in the near future. And, more importantly, discussed the potential societal impact of these technologies. The talk surveyed India’s record in developing Information Technologies and the opportunities for the country to become a significant innovator in this vital domain.
Opening remarks were made by Amitabh Kant, Chief Executive Officer, NITI Aayog and Yamini Aiyar, President and Chief Executive, Centre for Policy Research.
The session was chaired by Ambassador Shyam Saran, Life Trustee, India International Centre.
Arogyaswami Paulraj is Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, USA.
The audience feedback of the session can be accessed here.
Metamorphoses is a modest effort to try and bridge the gap between digital technologies, which are transforming our lives, and our understanding of their multiple dimensions. The series is a joint initiative between NITI Aayog (the Government of India’s think tank), India International Centre (IIC) and Centre for Policy Research (CPR).
Access the other Metamorphoses sessions below:
Metamorphoses: Keynote
Metamorphoses: Second Panel Discussion on ‘Future of Governance’
Metamorphoses: Special Interaction on ‘Leading Digital Transformation and Innovation’
Metamorphoses: Third Panel Discussion on ‘Vocabulary of the Digital’
Metamorphoses: Special Interaction on ‘Beyond Techno-Narcissism- Self and Other in the Internet Public Realm’
Metamorphoses: Fourth Panel Discussion on ‘Technology, Social Divides and Diversity’
Metamorphoses: Fifth Panel Discussion on ‘Unpacking Media – Digital & Traditional’
Metamorphoses: Sixth Panel Discussion on ‘Automation, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Jobs’
Metamorphoses: Seventh Panel Discussion on ‘Solutions to Technology Pessimism’
Metamorphoses: Eighth Panel Discussion on ‘Cyber Security’
Watch the full video (above) of the first part of the panel discussion on ‘Informational Privacy and Important Tradeoffs’ as part of the session on ‘Informational Privacy in India: An Emerging Discourse’ featuring Ananth Padmanabhan, Anjali Bhardwaj, Bhavin Patel and Amber Sinha.
In the light of important recent developments on informational privacy, data protection and data governance in India, and their widespread ramifications on India’s strategic relations with other nations as well as for doing business in India’s digital economy, the Technology and Society Initiative at the Centre for Policy Research organised a discussion on these themes. This discussion engaged with representatives from embassies, chambers of commerce and research funding organisations located in India.
The last few years have seen a formalisation of the right to informational privacy within India’s constitutional framework. While the context to this – the challenge to the validity of the Aadhaar project – has entailed broader issues on delivery of public goods and services, the response to whether an individual can assert control over key informational aspects of her life has become a critical part of our rights jurisprudence. The Supreme Court verdict in Justice Puttaswamy’s case (2017) unequivocally affirmed this right despite leaving open several important aspects including the permissibility of restrictions on this right, and the level of scrutiny which the judiciary could exercise to safeguard them. What was particularly striking was the judicial reliance on considerable scholarship emerging from India and Indian scholars on important themes pertaining to this right: the differing conceptions of privacy and the role for each of them within India’s constitutional framework; the impact of privacy erosion on citizen-State relationship and private transactions in the commercial realm; surveillance tools and technologies in India; the need for an indigenous data protection law, and much more. The court has picked up on this thread in the second Puttaswamy verdict upholding the constitutional validity of Aadhaar with some important caveats and exceptions.
Recently, the Expert Committee headed by retired Justice Srikrishna also convened to come out with a draft personal data protection bill. The centrality of data to both commercial activity and governance purposes has found recognition in this bill. While the present legal regime to regulate data in India can be considered chequered at best with divergent regulations across finance, healthcare, telecom, mobility etc., the new bill aims to create a ‘big data-ready’ framework. It impacts any private enterprise handling personal data by stipulating new internal procedures and strong penalties. The major themes in the bill are new user rights for data principals (individuals) who share their data with data fiduciaries (technology companies); data localisation and cross-border data flows; data protection authority (DPA) and its powers; data fiduciaries and new compliance requirements; and exceptions including law enforcement. Each of these carries major implications for data-driven solutions. During the deliberations of the Committee too, substantial Indian scholarship on the themes listed above have been referenced and relied upon. This is truly a breakout moment for privacy and data protection in India. It is changing the terrain of institutional responses to personal data, technology architectures, and digital trade.
The second part of the discussion on ‘Personal Data Protection in India’ featuring Arjun Sinha, Nehaa Chaudhari, Rahul Sharma, Rishab Bailey and Amba Kak can be accessed here.
In 2000, the central government declared Northeast India as India’s hydropower hub. Over 165 large dam projects were proposed to come up in the region. These projects were held as crucial to India’s energy and environmental security as well as the economic development of the country’s marginalised northeastern borderlands. However, nearly two decades on, this proposal to regulate the region’s water resources remains unimplemented. In addition, the projects have generated a lot of public opposition in Arunachal Pradesh where most of these dams are supposed to be situated, and in the downstream Brahmaputra valley of Assam. This article will look into the government’s hype and failure to construct hydropower dams in the Northeast region. It points to the need for a reflexive political decision on water resource management from the BJP-led governments in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and at the Centre.
With innovation in the genetic engineering now being rewarded in the form of intellectual property rights, there are new things that are beginning to count as property and as objects of human invention – plant varieties, seeds, germplasm, genetic sequences, DNA and so on. While these are revealed through practices of biotechnology, law translates it into a capacity for monopolistic appropriation for biotech innovators. What instrumentalities of technology and law co-produce biotic property? These instrumentalities are examined in a two paper series by Rajshree Chandra. While the first paper seeks to lay out the work of technology in the creation of new biological artefacts, and consequently new economic spaces and property claims, the second paper seeks to examine the role of law in translating inventive claims as property claims.
A NEW RESEARCH REPORT BY AMBARISH KARUNANITHI
SANITATION
Ambarish Karunanithi visited Malaysia’s wastewater management system and interacted with various authorities to write this report.
What is the research report about?
The poor management of urban wastewater across Indian cities is deteriorating river water quality, resulting in the chronic outbreaks of various water-borne diseases, leading to a high infant mortality rate, among other problems.
Although there are existing policy mandates, it is necessary to re-frame the existing wastewater policy framework, and plan for incremental changes. The Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), launched in 2014, aims to eradicate the practice of open defecation and the AMRUT scheme, launched in 2015, aims to improve wastewater infrastructure in urban India – both of which will positively impact the quantum of water-borne diseases.
However, even as both these schemes are under implementation, the missing link is an enabling policy framework. To understand what such enabling policy frameworks should look like, Ambarish decided to analyse how a developing nation like Malaysia achieved a well-structured wastewater management system over a period of time.
Understanding the Malaysian wastewater management system
With the practice of unsafe sanitation systems being rampant and high levels of river water pollution, the situation in Malaysia was not too different from that in India before 1950. By 2017 however, Malaysia has successfully developed policies and implemented best management practices for effective urban wastewater management leading to an overall improvement of river water quality. This is evident from the following facts:
70% of the Malaysian population is covered under the improved wastewater management system.
30% of the population has on-site sanitation systems like septic tanks, pits etc.
About 20-30% of the on-site sanitation systems are de-sludged and treated before disposal, while the rest are de-sludged as and when requested.
As a result of these measures, the life expectancy at birth for the average Malaysian man rose from 55.8 years in 1957 to 73 in 2005, while infant mortality dropped from 80 deaths per every 1,000 infants, to 5 per 1,000 infants for the same period. Malaysia offers a great learning experience for Indian cities that face similar challenges.
The evolution of an effective wastewater management system in Malaysia has been a result of interesting experiments. These include the introduction of scheduled de-sludging, tariff, cost recovery mechanism, and adoption of new technologies in an incremental manner in the country’s urban wastewater management system.
Uniquely, the Malaysian system has an integrated service provider for the management of wastewater in sewered and non-sewered areas. In other words, septic tank de-sludging, faecal sludge transport and treatment are handled by the same service provider who is also responsible for the management of sewerage networks and treatment systems.
All these reforms by Malaysia have resulted in an improved wastewater management system, which can provide valuable lessons for India and other developing nations to improve wastewater management and sanitation.
What are the key findings?
The major findings discussed in the report are:
Advantages and dis-advantages of federalisation:
Federalisation resulted in strong legislative arrangements, giving legal basis to initiatives like focused funding and large-scale investment in infrastructural development.
While wastewater management became a federal government matter, water supply remained a state government matter, thereby breaking the synergy between them. Owing to the inter linkage between water supply and waste water generation, dividing their management responsibilities between federal and state governments impacted the integrated service delivery approach negatively.
Development of a very strong regulatory framework in urban wastewater management with clear roles for funding, asset-management, enforcement, operation and maintenance.
Privatisation of the wastewater management sector, which enabled the development of effective guidelines and led to the standardisation of protocols for planning, designing, construction, operation and maintenance of wastewater management systems.
Appropriate technological developments, introduced gradually, providing the space and time for learning and adaptation.
Non-sewered urban sanitation approaches:
Standardisation of on-site sanitation design and installation procedures.
Scheduled de-sludging, though practiced for a limited time, proved to be very effective in maintaining the on-site sanitation system. Long-term sludge logistics and safe treatment methods were established during this regime.
How was the research conducted?’
The findings mentioned in the research report are the result of analysis of data collected from various primary and secondary sources. The major primary data for this report was collected from various Malaysian wastewater service provider agencies and officials in the National Regulatory Authority. The secondary data was obtained from online resources.
Conclusion
Wastewater management in Malaysia has evolved at a rapid pace over the last two decades. The sewage treatment trend has changed from a basic system that involved the use of rudimentary methods, such as bucket latrine in 1950 to the use of safe and advanced mechanised treatment plants in 2015.
This evolution has taken place largely due to stakeholders’ demand for a cleaner and safer environment for the public and an overall increased awareness about the need for a sustainable future. Nevertheless, there is still substantial reliance on non-network systems in urban areas, albeit not in the main Kuala Lumpur metropolis.
However, wastewater management practices have been facing customer and regulatory requirements that are increasingly more stringent as civil society becomes more sophisticated in its demand for a healthier environment to live in.
The report gathers essential information about wastewater management in Malaysia, for use to policy-makers in India and elsewhere, as it demonstrates the successes and challenges of an integrated approach for sewered and non-sewered wastewater management.
Associated project: Scaling City Institutions for India (SCI-FI)
GIZ, under the project `Sustainable Urban Development- Smart Cities’ (SUD-SC), partnered with the Housing & Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, has organized a two-day International Symposium on Reimagining Inclusive Cities. Centre for Policy Research has been retained by GIZ to help support the technical content of this event. The objective of the Symposium was to provide a platform that would bring in global knowledge and experiences to facilitate the ongoing dialogue to strengthen the existing policies related to housing, land and Infrastructure. Deliberations will be held on the issues pertaining to urban land and its availability for the affordable and rental housing as two critical instruments.
The event brought together national and international experts to promote knowledge sharing across cities and states. It showcased innovative housing policies, programmes, and initiatives, provided an opportunity to promote cross-learning among the State Governments. It also brought in international experts from the regions of South-East Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Europe, to present good practices and lessons learnt on augmenting land and infrastructure for affordable housing, urban and housing finance, new technologies for smart planning and expanding access to rental housing.
The two-day event was attended by over 175 participants including state government officials from the states of Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Odisha, architects, engineers, international and national urban practitioners, housing experts and students of planning and architecture.
Key sessions included:
WATCH (above): Inaugural Plenary Session
The video (above) of this panel features S. Krishnan, IAS (Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department (H&UDD), Government of Tamil Nadu (GoTN), India), Julie Reviere (Country Director, GIZ India), Thiru O. Panneerselvam, (Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister, Tamil Nadu, India), and M.S. Shanmugam, IAS, (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, GoTN, India).
WATCH: Technical Plenary: Housing Policy – International Experience
This opening technical session featured Yan Song, Professor (Director of Program on Chinese Cities, University of North Carolina, USA), Eduardo Rojas (Lecturer, PennDesign, University of Pennsylvania, USA), Giorgio Brosio (Professor of Public Economics, Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Turin, Italy), Ruth Kattumuri (Founder and Co-Director, India Observatory, London School of Economics, UK), Shubhagato Dasgupta (Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research) and, Tanja Feldmann (Director, GIZ Sustainable Urban and Industrial Development (SUID)). The session was chaired by representation from MoHUA, GoI and co-chaired by Amitabh Kundu (Visiting Professor, Institute of Human Development (IHD), New Delhi).
Part 2 of the technical plenary session can be accessed here.
WATCH: Parallel Session 1A: Land and Infrastructure for Urban Development
This parallel session featured Tanya Zack (Senior Researcher, University of Witwatersand, South Africa), Somsook Boonyabancha (Secretary General, Asian33 Coalition for Housing Rights, Thailand), Aparna Das (Senior Advisor, GIZ SUD-SC), Anindita Mukherjee (Senior Researcher, Centre for Policy Research) and, Shikha Srivastava (Lead- Urban Poverty Alleviation & Livelihoods, TATA Trust, Mumbai). The session was chaired by M.S. Shanmugam, IAS (Managing Director, TNSCB, GoTN) and co-chaired by Chetan Vaidya (Former Director, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi).
Part 2 of the parallel session 1A can be accessed here.
WATCH: Parallel Session 2A: Financing Urban Infrastructure
This session featured Gisela Färber (Chair of Economic Political Science, German University of Administrative Sciences, Speyer), Ravikant Joshi (Advisor, Urban Management and Urban Finance, Urban Management Centre, Ahmedabad), Sumesh Girhotra (Private Sector Development Adviser, Department for International Development (DFID)) and, Vivek Nair (Head- Reforms, Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy, Bengaluru). The session was chaired by T. K. Sreedevi, IAS (Director, Municipal Administration, Government of Telangana) and co-chaired by Shubhagato Dasgupta (Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research).
Part 2 of the parallel session 2A can be accessed here.
WATCH: Parallel Session 3A: New Technologies for Smart Planning
This session featured Rajesh Goel (Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Prefab Limited, GoI), Alexander Jachnow (Head of Urban Strategies and Planning, IHS Erasmus University, the Netherlands), Jorg Rainer Noennig (Professor for Digital City Science, Hamburg University, Germany) and, Siddhartha Benninger (Project Planner, Centre for Development Studies and Activities, Pune). The session was chaired by Rajesh Lakhoni, IAS (Principal Secretary/Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, GoTN) and co-chaired by Shovan Kumar Saha (Professor Emeritus, Sharda University, Noida).
WATCH: Parallel Session 1B: Infrastructure for Urban Development
This session featured Phang Sock Yong (Vice Provost & Celia Moh Chair Professor of Economics, Singapore Management University), DTV Raghu Rama Swamy (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Architecture, Building & Planning, University of Melbourne, Australia), Amit Prothi (Head of India National Strategy,100ResilientCities), and Mr. Binu Francis, Director – Urban Housing, Kudumbashree, Government of Kerala). The session was chaired by Rajesh Lakhoni, IAS (Principal Secretary/Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, GoTN) and co-chaired by Chetan Vaidya (Former Director, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi).
WATCH: Parallel Session 2B: Mobilizing Finance for Housing
This session featured Kecia Rust (Executive Director & Founder, Centre for Affordable Housing Finance, South Africa), Vidhee Garg (Principal, Affordable Housing Institute, Boston, USA), Ranjani Kolasseril (Financial Expert, Habitat for Humanity, Kochi) and, Anand Iyer (Chief Project Manager, National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi). The session was chaired by S. Krishnan, IAS (Principal Secretary, H&UDD, GoTN) and co-chaired by Shubhagato Dasgupta (Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research).
WATCH: Parallel Session 3B: New Technologies for Smart Buildings
This session featured Ashok B. Lall (Principal, Ashok B. Lall Architects, New Delhi), Sanjeev Pokharel (Project Manager, Capacity Development of Municipalities, GIZ Nepal), Markus Ewald (Urban Planner, Urbanista, Germany), and Ashwin Mahalingam, (Associate Professor, Center for Urbanization Building and Environment, IIT Madras). The session was chaired by Harmander Singh, IAS (Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, GoTN) and co-chaired by Shovan Kumar Saha, (Professor Emeritus, Sharda University, Noida).
WATCH: Plenary Session: Land and Finance for Rental Housing in India
This session featured Sumila Gulyani (Program Leader, Infrastructure and Sustainable Development, India, World Bank), Claude Taffin (Housing Economist, France, Mathi Vathanan, IAS (Commissioner-cum-Secretary, H&UDD, GoO) and, Anand Rao Vishnu Patil, IAS (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, GoTN). The session was chaired by Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, IAS (Director General, National Mission for Clean Ganga, GoI) and co-chaired by Amitabh Kundu (Visiting Professor, IHD, New Delhi).
Part 2 of the plenary session can be accessed here.
WATCH: Parallel Session 4: Legal and Institutional Frameworks for Rental Housing
This session featured Robert M. Buckley (Urban Institute, Washington, USA), Seth Maqetuka (Coordinator, Cities Programme, Treasury, Government of South Africa), Aparna Das (Senior Advisor, GIZ SUD-SC), Anindita Mukherjee (Senior Researcher, Centre for Policy Research) and, Jayaprakash Padmanaban (Partner, Fox Mandal & Associates, Chennai). The session was chaired Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, IAS (Director General, National Mission for Clean Ganga, GoI) and co-chaired by Tanja Feldmann (Director, SUID Cluster, GIZ).
WATCH: Parallel Session 5: Private Sector Participation in Affordable/ Rental Housing: Challenges and Opportunities
This session featured József Hegedüs (Managing Director, Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest), Vera Horváth (Senior Researcher, Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest), Michael Ball (Professor Henley Business School, University of Reading), Satyanarayana Vejella (Founder, Aarusha Homes, Hyderabad), John Alex, (Equitas Holdings Limited, Chennai) and, Akshaya Kumar Sen (Joint General Manager (Economics) and Fellow, HSMI, HUDCO, GoI). The session was chaired by Amrit Abhijat, IAS (Joint Secretary (PMAY), MoHUA, GoI) and Gaurav Jain (Joint Vice President- North, National Real Estate Development Council, New Delhi).
WATCH: Closing Plenary Session: Way Forward
This plenary session brought together the discussions and presentations in the parallel sessions. The Co-Chairs of the five parallel sessions presented to the plenary the main issues and learning across the five main themes discussed during the conference. This final technical session also provided to the participants to reflect on the interconnectedness of the themes. The summary of this session presented in the valedictory session as main recommendations from the Symposium by the Chair.
WATCH: Closing Plenary: Moving Forward on Recommendations and Areas for Action
This Closing plenary allowed an opportunity for the leaders in government and development partners to articulate the key takeaways from the Symposium and state a way forward from their own perspectives.
CPR-TCPD (TRIVEDI CENTRE FOR POLITICAL DATA, ASHOKA UNIVERSITY) DIALOGUES ON INDIAN POLITICS
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS
Watch the full video (above) of the third discussion in the series on the broad contours of the research agenda for 2019 elections, featuring Ashutosh Varshney, Pradeep Chhibber, Vandita Mishra, and Aditi Phadnis.
The run up to the general elections in 2019 have already generated heated political debate. As political activity gains momentum, researchers and observers of Indian politics face the formidable task of interpreting and analysing the implications of these activities both on the immediate elections as well as on democratic practice in the long term. In these polarised times, when debates on politics have become increasingly partisan, building a research agenda to understand the elections becomes even more critical.
Ashutosh Varshney is Sol Goldman Professor of International Studies and the Social Sciences and Professor of Political Science at Brown University. Pradeep Chhibber is Professor and Indo-American Community Chair in India Studies and Director of the Institute of International Studies at UC Berkeley. Vandita Mishra is National Opinion Editor at the Indian Express. Aditi Phadnis is Political Editor at Business Standard.
The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here
About the CPR-TCPD Dialogues
This was the third event in the CPR-TCPD Dialogues on Indian Politics series, launched in a partnership between Centre for Policy Research and Trivedi Centre for Political Data (TPCD) at Ashoka University. This is a monthly event that brings together academicians, policy and political practitioners, and civil society actors to grapple with important social and political issues in India. It provides a forum for intellectually rigorous, non-partisan commentary to strengthen public discourse on politics in India. In these polarised times, debates on politics in India have tended to be increasingly noisy, blurring the lines between critical engagement and partisan endorsement. This dialogue series is an effort to carve out a space for critical, nuanced engagement to understand the changing dynamics of Indian political parties, the impact of new and emerging social movements and the use of new instruments of mobilisation in our polity.
Interpreting the Doklam Resolution
CPR FACULTY COMMENT
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS SECURITY
Read below a curated analysis by CPR faculty commenting on the resolution of the three-month-long Doklam stand-off between India and China:
Shyam Saran deconstructs how China constructs the modern narrative of power in The Quint. In another article, he writes that ‘while the Doklam issue has been defused, this does not mean that similar issues will not arise in the future’.
Srinath Raghavan writes in Livemint that the Doklam stand-off, even after being resolved, needs to be ‘seen for what it is – an indication of the steady deterioration in the ability of India and China to deal with such situations’.
According to G Parthasarathy in The New Indian Express, ‘by standing firm’ and not reciprocating to Chinese propaganda, India ‘won admiration across Asia’.
Brahma Chellaney writes that despite the resolution, the stand-off had further weakened the ‘already frayed bilateral relationship’ between India and China, which would not be easy to repair. In another article, Chellaney writes that the chief of the People’s Liberation Army of China was likely responsible for precipitating the stand-off in the first place, and it was resolved only after President Xi Jinping replaced the chief.
Nimmi Kurian writes that ‘shorn of its trappings, India’s China policy today is virtually caught in a double vision alternating between engagement and disengagement, cooperation and competition’, and analyses what this portends for the future.
AS PART OF ‘POLICY CHALLENGES – 2019-2024: THE BIG POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE NEW GOVERNMENT AND POSSIBLE PATHWAYS’
CPR WATER RESEARCH
By Srinivas Chokkakula
Interstate rivers and national water security
India’s 29 states and 7 UTs (Union Territories) share its 20 major river basins. This simple framing presents how India’s water security is embedded in a canvas of deeply-interdependent interstate hydrogeographies. India’s water security is defined and determined by how its interstate rivers are governed.
The state of policy and institutional set up for interstate river water governance does not inspire confidence though. Interstate river water disputes emerge and recur frequently. Their adjudication incurs long delays, marked by adversarial litigations. States often defy judicial directives from either the tribunals or the Supreme Court, leading to constitutional crisis. Implementation of the tribunal awards/decisions suffers from an acute absence of reliable interstate institutional models/mechanisms. Each escalation or recurrence of disputes incur huge costs to the economy. Antagonistic politics and politicization characterize interstate river water relations.1 On the other hand, implementation of interstate river development projects and rejuvenation programmes too, are impaired by the larger void of a robust interstate coordination or collaboration ecosystem.
The history of interstate river water governance of India partly explains this state of affairs. Since independence, it has been that of exigency-driven contingent responses. The policy ecosystem is primarily set to respond to the exigencies of conflicts and remained oblivious to the idea of interstate cooperation. There is practically no ecosystem for interstate coordination and collaboration over river waters. A simple fact extends support to this assessment. The Interstate (River) Water Disputes Act 1956, for resolving interstate river water disputes, has been amended at least a dozen times. Yet another amendment bill has been tabled before the Parliament in 2018. In contract, the River Boards Act 1956, enacted at the same time as the former and meant to enable interstate collaboration has never been touched since its inception. Further, it has never been used to create any boards, not even once! For some inexplicable reason, the river boards so far created draw on alternative and ad-hoc channels – either of notifications of the government, or state-bifurcation laws, or sometimes through separate acts of Parliament. The act has remained untouched even when it was found unusable for the purpose it was intended for.
The constitutional division of powers with respect to water, and its practice is the other reason. The subject of water is listed under the Entry 17 of the State List. This however is subject to the Entry 56 of the Union List pertaining to the regulation and development of interstate rivers.2 In the initial years of single party dominance, the negligence of carving its role definitively – some called it, “wilful abdication of its role” – has led to the states assuming unfettered and exclusive powers over water governance.
This trajectory of evolution has contributed to the entrenchment of territorialized perceptions and competitive approaches of states towards water resource development. This has been aided generally by the transformation of Indian state and polity over the years. The initial single party dominance has given in coalitional politics giving greater room for subregionalism and territorial assertion of states.
An outcome of this for the centre-state relations over water governance is the increasing resistance of states to any attempt of the centre’s assertion of its role under the Entry 56, over interstate river water governance. Central institutions like CWC and CGWB are perceived increasingly irrelevant. States pursue their respective territorial visions of water resource development with little or no appreciation for the cumulative impact, with adverse implications to national water security.
Ambitious plans and ambiguous foundations
Several practical reasons necessitate this revisiting of interstate river water governance with particular focus on centre-state relations. The country has set itself ambitious plans for greater economic growth and these depend on strong and reliable interstate river water cooperation. These plans have both development and conservation goals. The development projects are not just the conventional supply augmentation, but also include inland waterways. The proposed inland waterways over 105 national waterways poses new challenges for interstate river water governance.3 The interlinking of rivers, though much contested, has received patronage from consecutive governments – yet could not make much headway due to, partly the hurdles of interstate coordination.
The flagship programme of Ganga rejuvenation is a response to the intensely stressed river ecosystems. It has received unprecedented attention and investments. Yet the ‘blind spot’ with respect to the tenuous centre-state and interstate relations remains an unaddressed challenge. This centre’s fully-funded programme may effect some temporary impact. But sustaining it over longer term will require a deeper institutionalization of the programme among the states, in addition to closer interstate coordination and collaboration.
The vital shift towards Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) mooted by the National Water Policy 2012 will itself require a consensus among states. An articulation of national policy simply will not achieve states’ compliance. The historical geographies of uneven water resource development among states will warrant deliberating over the tradeoffs in shifting to IWRM. The shift has to be led by the centre with the consent of the states.
Above all, there are new challenges of climate change linked risks. This big unknown adds to the challenges of interstate coordination with its uncertainties over space as well as time. Interstate collaboration and cooperation is central to coping with the risk of disasters such as floods.
Shift focus to enabling cooperation
In order to realize the development goals of these ambitious projects, and in the interest of longer term water security, the government has to begin proactively engaging with the challenge of interstate river water governance. This requires a fundamental strategic shift, away from the current reliance on conflict resolution, and make deliberate efforts to enable and nurture an ecosystem for interstate river water cooperation. Such an ecosystem is useful for disputes resolution as well in essential terms. Interstate river water disputes resolution often fails because there are no reliable mechanisms for implementing the tribunal awards or decisions. It can only be possible when the party states collectively contribute to “giving effect” to the decisions. Thus, interstate river water cooperation ecosystem is a necessary condition for effective conflict resolution.
This intricate link in fact accentuates the emerging understanding about the nature of transboundary relationship when rivers are shared between territorial entities. The binary of either conflict or cooperation is a flawed premise to address the challenges of transboundary river sharing. Instead it is increasingly evident that the complex political ecology of transboundary river water sharing constitutes a coexistence of conflict and cooperation.4 The design of policy and institutional solutions has to acknowledge this character, and cannot rely on legal instruments alone. It has to be supplemented with other elements of ecosystem: policy, institutions, and politics.
First, there has to be clearly articulated policy intent. The National Water Policy has to declare that creating and nurturing an ecosystem for interstate river water cooperation as one of its priorities, and enunciate specific steps towards setting the process in motion.
Second, politics have to make the policy reforms possible. In view of the historical evolution of centre-state-water relations in practice, the policy and institutional reforms for interstate cooperation will have to build on a political consensus for setting out on this path. At the core of this consensus will be how the centre has to (re)position itself. The political process has to aim at redefining the centre’s role under the Entry 56 of the Union List, considering the emerging challenges of interstate river water governance. This does not mean reorganizing the constitutional division of powers, which will likely to face vehement resistance from states. Instead, the goal will be to redefine the existing centre-state division of powers in terms of functional and operational responsibilities required to pursue the ambitious plans and programmes. In other words, the water agenda has to be elevated for a federal consensus, say, along the lines of the GST reforms.
The idea of building federal consensus for water reforms is not entirely new. The need for such political process and forum was felt before as well. For instance, the National Water Resources Council has been created under the aegis of the Ministry of Water Resources. The National Development Council is another forum for such federal deliberations. These forums failed to deliver for variety of reasons. A key reason is their failure to assuage states about their neutrality and objectivity in enabling deliberations; these are perceived as politically-subjective and serving the agendas of the particular political regimes in power.
The Interstate Council may be nurtured as an institutional space for these federal deliberations. The constitution provides for the Interstate Council, for the specific purpose of interstate coordination. Yet this vision for the Council has been lost for inexplicable reasons. This crucial federal forum has been neglected, and undermined due to its ill-conceived purpose and location. The Interstate Council has been ill-conceived as a department of the executive – a politically subjective space. Instead, it should have been conceived and cultivated as an institution at par with other institutions serving key constitutional functions for deliberative democracy.
The Article 263 providing for Interstate Council incidentally follows the peculiar Article 262 providing for barring the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The constitutional framers were conscious of the limitations of the courts in addressing challenges posed by interstate river water disputes; and, that a robust deliberative process is essential for their resolution. The success stories of water reforms in other comparable federal contexts are often celebrated, say from Germany or Australia. Central to these success stories is a strong institution offering a space for federal deliberations: the LAWA (Working Group of the Federal States) in Germany, or the COAG (Council of Australian Governments) in Australia. The Interstate Council has to serve a similar function to pursue the proposed reforms. Just as these deliberative spaces, the Interstate Council can be a permanent deliberative forums to take forward reforms. The Council’s scope however may not be restricted to water resources alone, but can have working groups for different sectors serving the purpose of interstate coordination.
The third element is to develop strong and resilient institutional models for interstate coordination, or compliance or collaboration – primarily to give effect to any interstate project, programme or agreement. A River Basin Management Bill 2018 has been proposed, replacing the River Boards Act 1956, for the purpose. But it assumes that centrally driven river basin authorities can serve these functions. Some states have already resisted this conception. It is unlikely these authorities will be effective without a consensus about the functional roles of the centre and states, and the operational domain of river basin authorities. The bill does not build on such a consensus; instead assumes that including representations from states is sufficient to make the institutions work. River Basin Authorities or any other form of interstate institutional models need to emerge from, and build upon the contours of the respective functional spaces emerging from the federal consensus. An enduring and empowered deliberative forum, such as the Interstate Council will enable such consensus building and evolution of collaborative solutions.
The fourth is pursuing an effective strategy for interstate river water disputes resolution. It requires a course correction. A historical understanding of the unusual approach – of barring courts’ jurisdiction and setting up tribunals for adjudication – reveals that these arrangements were conceived with an intent of ensuring finality to the resolution, and in a swift manner. Deliberative approaches were integral to tribunals’ adjudication of the disputes. This was the approach used by the first generation of tribunals, constituted for Krishna, Godavari and Narmada disputes. Over time, the subsequent amendments to the act have turned tribunals into courts and increasingly relying on adversarial litigations. This is one of the reasons for extended delays in giving away awards. The recent decision of the Supreme Court modifying the Cauvery tribunal award is just another instance of this trend. Extending Supreme Court’s jurisdiction opens up additional layers of judicial litigation. The processes of adjudication by tribunals needs to be reviewed, with due attention to courts’ limitations in addressing interstate river water disputes. It has to consider strengthening the adjudication with deeper integration of deliberative processes, and building on the cooperation ecosystem. The Interstate River Water Disputes amendment bill 2018 proposing a Permanent Tribunal has made a feeble attempt to incorporate this element, while continuing with the adversarial character of tribunals’ functioning. A Disputes Resolution Committee has been proposed, to attempt resolution through mediation. Its proposed composition does not inspire confidence though.
Other pieces as part of CPR’s policy document, ‘Policy Challenges – 2019-2024’ can be accessed below:
1 To illustrate, the Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the suit filed by the Tamil Nadu for a compensation of Rs 25,000 crore for crop losses due to alleged failure of Karnataka to release Cauvery waters in time in just one season. 2 This was the basis for enacting the River Boards Act 1956. 3 The National Waterways Act 2016 4 Mirumachi N (2015) Transboundary water politics in the developing world. Routledge, Oxon
