 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we're joined by Raghu, the President of the All India People's Science Network, to discuss the controversy surrounding the Muluperiyar Dam. Hi, Raghu. Hi. Now, while the issue of the Muluperiyar Dam has been in and out of the public eye for a few decades now, why has there been such a sudden revival of interest in the issue? Well, two things have happened recently, which have brought the controversy into sharp focus. One was apprehensions in Kerala about the safety of the dam resurfaced, and this was accentuated by the recent earthquakes in the region, which for obvious reasons heightened the fears of the local people about the safety of the dam. This is the reason why it has come up to the forefront, and as usual in interstate water issues, there have been heated emotions on either side of the border, which has focused attention on the issue again. What are the two perspectives of the states on this matter? Why the controversy in the first place? The controversy is that as far as Kerala is concerned, it sees the problem as basically one relating to the safety of this dam, which is an earthen dam. It is not a concrete dam. It is a gravity dam, and it is 110 plus years old, and cracks are visible in the dam. The earthquake has happened recently, and there are obvious apprehensions in Kerala about the safety of the dam, and what is likely to happen if the dam breaks. If that happens, the large part of the damage due to the inundation will be in Kerala. Now, the dam itself actually serves irrigation purposes almost exclusively in Tamil Nadu. Now, Kerala's proposal is because of the safety issues around the dam to break the dam and build a new one. Now, obviously, that is going to take some time, and Tamil Nadu is worried that if that happens, then Tamil Nadu would be deprived of the water supply. Is it just for the interim period? Yes, of course, because once the dam is built, and Kerala has assured that the dam would continue to serve the purposes of providing irrigation water to Tamil Nadu, but Tamil Nadu is worried that in the interim period, there would be disruption in water supply, and that once a new dam is built, there may be a renegotiation of the terms, and maybe Tamil Nadu would not get the water that... Essentially, so do you believe that it's possible that Kerala is exaggerating the risks of the situation to get out of what they could deem to be an onerous lease? Because at the moment, for example, I understand, Tamil Nadu pays an annual rent of two and a half lakhs for the water from the Mula Periyar dam. See, this dam exclusively serves the needs of Tamil Nadu. It is not serving any major need inside Kerala. In fact, from that context, one is a little surprised at the offer made by Tamil Nadu to build a new dam. Why would Tamil Nadu... By Kerala. I mean Kerala. Why would Kerala build a new dam? Absolutely. Which is going to serve the purposes exclusively of Tamil Nadu. And therefore, Tamil Nadu has the apprehension that if a new dam is built, there would be new rates or new charges, etc. Applied. Now, given that our constitutional scheme recognizes every state's right to regulate water and water resources within its own territory, was it unfair for Kerala to have categorized the dam as an endangered dam through its Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act? See, in very strict legal terms, no. But the very dam has been built and the services of the dam has been provided to Tamil Nadu as a result of a joint agreement and a long-term lease between the two states. Therefore, there is this idea that both the states are stakeholders in this. And as is true in most interstate river issues or dam problems, even though the dam may be located in one state, but if it serves the interests of lower riparian other states, they become stakeholders in it and they also have an opinion to offer. So that makes sense. Now, with the reluctance of the Supreme Court to pass substantive orders on the matter, why has the centre which is empowered under the constitution and in fact has been requested by the Supreme Court to mediate on the issue, why has it failed to make any headway in the matter? Well, it is now getting its act together, hopefully. But as usual, the centre sees this as a hornet's nest as involving two states, each of which seems to be taking an extreme position. And the centre intervenes and if it is perceived as tilting to one side or another, then what is currently happening is which is the two states arguing with each other, then both the states turn around and start arguing with the centre. So the centre would like to stay out of it if possible or at best act as an honest broker to bring the two states together. Now, the chance for an objective or a fact-based decision on such issues usually appears remote given the jingoistic political rhetoric as you've mentioned. Now, do you think that this is inevitable in a constitutional system such as ours or should such decisions be taken out of the political sphere altogether? See, my view on this is that I believe there are three issues here at work in this connection. One is there is a complete lack of faith in the general public as well as in political circles when it comes to issues which they think are at the core of their interest. There is a lack of confidence in appointed expert bodies or public bodies. For instance, in this case, the Tamil Nadu government has taken a very strident position saying that the dam is safe, quoting a report by experts of the Central Water Commission dating back to 30 plus years ago and saying, look, these experts have pronounced this dam to be safe. Therefore, it is safe. The same state government, however, is not prepared to accept at face value the statement of the Atomic Energy Commission that the Kudam Kulam plant is safe because the state government has a different point of has a take. So it's become a matter of subjective choice, whether you accept an expert's opinion or you don't. And we have yet to evolve either a culture or a system in this country of expert bodies passing an opinion which is then examined by a peer process or is peer reviewed or is thrown open to the public and thereby builds a public confidence in this expert body. One can see the same air of suspicion, if you like, even in the famous Lokpal Bill, Anna Hazare's Jan Lokpal Bill also has provisions for how the Lokpal is to be appointed by people who are above suspicion. And in case the Lokpal falters to have another body which is again of people who are above suspicion to then examine those who are supposed to be above suspicion. So this process I believe in our country has now become endless. And it is time we restore the public's acceptance of expert opinion. But the only way that can be done is if these experts actually are unbiased and do not express opinions which are purely subservient to political interests of this or that dispensation at the state or. Absolutely, absolutely. Now what sort of resolution do you actually see coming out of this issue? Will we just have more and more committees being formed under an inevitable delay? See one of the, I think we can learn a lot from some of the earlier disputes that we've had on water. For example, on the Kaveri issue, which as you know has been an equally if not more of a turbulent and polarized debate, but there have been several efforts by civil society, by technical experts, farmers organizations, civil society organizations coming together to discuss solutions which have actually gone much further than tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies in being able to arrive at what are equally acceptable solutions between ultimately two stakes of share of stakeholders who have an equal stake, the people of one state and the people of another state, or farmers of one state, farmers of another state. There have been some efforts in this direction, even on the Mulla Periyar issue. And I think our news click site would also have, I would forward to you a proposal put together by a set of experts along with some civil society organizations bringing together people from both Kerala and Tamil Nadu as well as experts from other parts of the country who have put forward a possible solution to the Mulla Periyar issue. And interestingly, the solution they offer is not just not falling either into the Tamil Nadu type solution or the Kerala type solution. In fact, they are arguing that from a purely precautionary principle standpoint, which is the stand that Tamil Nadu took with regard to the Kudam Kulam plant, that precautionary principle would suggest that if there is apprehension of danger, then you'd stay back, resolve the danger, and then move ahead. If the similar stance is to be adopted with regard to the Mulla Periyar issue, then safety being a prime consideration, you would say address the safety issue first. Have a proper addressing of the safety by a consensually appointed panel of experts. In the interim, lower the height of the dam so that the immediate apprehensions of safety, so lowering the dam height to maybe 120 feet of impoundment of water is one suggestion. But interestingly, they have also raised the issue of whether at all a second dam in Kerala is required or is desirable. And there are two very important points being raised here. The first is that a new dam in Kerala now would mean a huge amount of displacement over many years and ecological disturbance inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve. You've already had disturbance due to the Mulla Periyar dam, but it's now settled and it's been like that for 100 plus years. Now, if you're going to build a new dam, you're talking about six, seven, eight years of huge amount of disturbance of the ecosystem. You'll have roads being built, trucks going in and out, massive amounts of concrete. So there's going to be massive ecological disturbance inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve. So is that desirable? That's question number one. And question number two is, is there a justification or a need for having a storage dam inside Kerala for supplying water to Tamil Nadu? And if the idea is to supply water to Tamil Nadu, then the same purpose can be served by having what's called a diversion dam, which is not impounding such a large quantity of water, but just divert and ensure supply of water to Tamil Nadu. And then Tamil Nadu can build storage capacities in different distributed reservoirs, not necessarily in one large one for the purposes inside Tamil Nadu. This seems to me to be a very equitable and sensible suggestion and deserves to be examined by experts, civil societies and political organizations on both sides. And I do hope views like that will continue to be circulated in the public domain. Thanks, Raghu, for joining us and thank you for watching.