Ethnolinguistic Cleavages and Interstate River Disputes in the Union of India
India is one of the world’s most centralized federal systems, and its Constitution grants the federal government unusually broad powers to control the actions of state-level political leaders. At the same time, however, India’s state- level politics are highly acrimonious, particularly after the emergence of state- based ethnic political parties since the 1960s (Diksit 1975). These fractious subnational politics are mirrored in numerous interstate river disputes which the center has, despite its considerable constitutional and political powers, proven unable to resolve. As John Wood remarks, “One would think that these powers would be adequate to enable the central government to play an active mediating role in an interstate river water disputes. . . . But the central government’s maneuverability is often no greater than that of the states” (Wood 2007, 40). Indeed, the country’s interstate disputes are so acute that the former head of India’s water resource engineering agency, the Central Water Commission, warned in an opinion-editorial that “hydro-politics is threatening the very fabric of federalism” (Menon 2003). Virtually all of India’s major river basins play host to long-running interstate water disputes, primarily related to water quantity allocation. Notable disputes include most of the principal peninsular rivers, including the Mhadei, the Kaveri (Cauvery), and the Krishna basins, which predate independence. Other sites of interstate conflict include the Narmada, racked by construction of a large dam; the relatively water-rich Mahanadi; and the Sutlej–amuna Link Canal, which supplies much of New Delhi’s drinking water. Unfortunately, few of these disputes show signs of resolution in the near term. Yet as India’s economy has grown and the demands on its major rivers have multiplied, these disputes increasingly constrain the development of large sections of the country. The central puzzle of the Indian case is why interstate river disputes are both so numerous and so persistent, especially given the central government’s constitutional authority to resolve them.