state any one reason for the growing inter state water disputes in India today
who answer get 5 point
Answers
Answer:
This is an all-encompassing directive – you have to debate on paper by going through the details of the issues concerned by examining each one of them. You have to give reasons for both for and against arguments.
Explanation:
HOPE ITS HELP YOU ✌✌
Answer:
If you want short answer
Causes of Inter State Water Disputes in India..
Three stressors of inter-state water conflicts in India
Three stressors of inter-state water conflicts in IndiaConflictual Federalism. ...
Three stressors of inter-state water conflicts in IndiaConflictual Federalism. ...Minimum Support Price regimes. ...
Three stressors of inter-state water conflicts in IndiaConflictual Federalism. ...Minimum Support Price regimes. ...Lack of an integrated approach. ...
Three stressors of inter-state water conflicts in IndiaConflictual Federalism. ...Minimum Support Price regimes. ...Lack of an integrated approach. ...Holism as opposed to Reductionism.
Explanation:
If you are writing a essay....
Three stressors of inter-state water conflicts in India..
I assert the existence of three prime stressors causing interstate water conflicts in India. These three stressors are: a) the federal structure of the nation, where water has been made part of the State list; b) wrong delineation of the food security policy leading to dominance of high water-consuming crops like rice and wheat in production and procurement; and c) lack of an integrated ecosystems approach in understanding the land-water-food nexus in the water policy of the nation. All three factors point to lack of holism in water governance paradigm. Let me explain each point one by one.
Conflictual Federalism
The Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution confers power on the states to decide on the use of water for various purposes like water supply, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power (Entry 17 of List II – State List), subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of List I. Interestingly, desite the fact that ‘interstate water’ has been explicitly mentioned in the Union List, there is no such acknowledgement in the State List. This allows the states to delineate the “user rights” over waters in ways deemed best by them. To avoid controversies arising from such ambiguities, the Union Government has generally avoided any proactive approach towards basin-level governance in practice, and has confined its role in setting up Tribunals under exigencies of interstate water disputes. This creates a situation of interstate water conflicts: a phenomenon described as “conflictutal federalism”.
Minimum Support Price regimes
The second stressor that I would like highlight is the wrong delineation of our food security by reducing its definition to producing and procuring high water-consuming paddy and wheat. It all began with the Green Revolution in the late 1960s, continued with the introduction of minimum support price (MSP) mechanism in the late 1970s, and eventually the governmental procurement policies through the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and state procurement agencies. The Green Revolution was not only successful in increasing the yield and production of foodgrains, but also helped in bringing more areas under cultivation of irrigated paddy and wheat. These largely happened at the cost of lower water-consuming millets like Ragi and Sorghum which were displaced in many areas. In this process, the phenomenon of minimum support prices (MSP) played an important role.
Lack of an integrated approach
That the water governance architecture in India is based on a fragmented piecemeal approach, rather than integrated basin approach that takes a holistic view of the land-water-food nexus. The “conflictual federalism” and the pricing mechanism that promotes production of water-consuming crops without much concern about the ecosystem services associated with organic hydrological regimes is symptomatic of this fragmented approach of water governance. The water technocracy dictating water governance in India seems largely oblivious of the globally changing paradigms of Integrated River Basin Governance. Their disciplinary allegiance to traditional structuralist engineering brought in India by the British administration is extremely prominent.
Holism as opposed to Reductionism
A 2016 report from the erstwhile MoWRGR, GoI, titled A 21st Century Institutional Architecture for India’s Water Reforms, prepared under the chairmanship of Dr Mihir Shah, acknowledges that water governance is a complex issue requiring a multi-disciplinary approach. This is possible by combining elements from natural sciences, engineering, ecological economics and other social sciences. This report has led to a war of paradigms between those who propagate the structuralist engineering and those who embed their contentions on a holistic governance mechanism. Governing a flow regime requires a holistic approach keeping in view the integrity of the ecohydrological cycle, rather than a fragmented approach responsible for the three stressors of interstate water conflicts in India.