Water resources should be nationalised not nationalised give reason
Answers
Water in the constitution is a state subject, with some special provisions for central intervention for example in the case of inter-state disputes. This is a bit of subtle point and has been discussed quite a bit by scholars. I don’t remember the details, so you’ll have to search the web for it. For example Ramaswamy Iyer has written a lot about it eg in his book, “Water - Perspectives, Issues, Concerns”. Some have argued for a Constitutional amendment to give the Centre more powers. Iyer’s own conclusion is that there are enough provisions currently for effective Central intervention and we don’t need more.
One of the reasons that there are interstate water disputes is indeed that the state politicians have a lot of political incentive to posture aggressively in the matter of water, rather than settle for a solution that may be fair, but that appears like a sellout to the public. From this perspective, it could be argued that giving the Center more powers may allow an farsighted Center to push through good solutions.
However, states guard their powers very jealously and any attempt to reduce their powers in respect to water resources is likely to be very contentious and will be difficult to pass.
A significant amount of our water is groundwater and rivers that are restricted to one state and don’t have a interstate dispute problem. It doesn’t all come from interstate rivers. So if we truly care about water, we would focus more on using these resources which are in our control wisely, rather than fight about interstate waters. In the absence of action on this, I would wonder if there is any real commitment to solve water problems.