An agitational approach to river disputes only prolongs them Disputes of river waters are almost as perennial as the rivers themselves. Wars have been fought over water since the dawn of human history, and disputes have raged between states for centuries over the sharing of river waters. It is not surprising therefore that Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, or India and Pakistan should squabble over the sharing of river water. Neither should it surprise us that river disputes go on and on, despite there being a mechanism to arrive a compromise. Both India and Pakistan recognised early on the potential for discord in the sharing of river waters. To avoid that, they signed the Indus Waters Treaty in I960, an international agreement that has stood the test of time, in spite of wars too. Meanwhile, the Indian government also understood the disputes that would arise between states that shared a river. To meet such eventualities an Inter-State Water Disputes Act was passed in 1956. This provided for a Tribunal, with the power of the Supreme Court, to decide on how water was to be shared between the states. Even then it was not easy. The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal took nine years to reach its decision in 1979, dividing the waters of the Narmada river between Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. It took a decade for the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal to deliver its verdict on how the Krishna's waters were to be shared between Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Despite the award for the Narmada, work on the dams on the river was delayed for several years by an agitation led by Medha Patkar. Among other matters, she disputed the tribunal's finding on how much water flowed down the Narmada. Whatever her justification for a better deal for those displaced by the dams, she cannot question the tribunal's award, which has the same standing a Supreme Court judgement. Last fortnight, another drama took place in Karnataka, after the tribunal's award on the sharing of the Cauvery's waters. Passions were aroused and violence was unleashed on the streets of Bangalore. The tribunal's order could not have pleased everyone. The dispute goes back to the 19th century between the then Madras Presidency and Mysore state but an agreement for 50 years in 1924 kept things quiet till 1974. When agitations resumed, a tribunal was set up which gave an interim award in 1991. This was followed until the final award in February. Karnataka had asked for 465 thousand million cubic ft (tmc) a year as its share, Tamil Nadu claimed 566 tmc. The Tribunal awarded 270 tmc to Karnataka and TN gets 419 tmc. The verdict of the tribunal, the an independent, non-political, legal body in the country, has to be respected. Otherwise we invite anarchy. At the most Karnataka can request the Tribunal to review its order. It is not for us to go into the merits of each state's case, as this has already been done by the Tribunal. It has considered and studied the matter for several years. Similarly, India and Pakistan first tried to resolve the dispute over the 450 mw Baglihar hydroelectric dam in Kashmir. Being unable to do so they went to a World Bank appointed neutral expert as set out in the agreement. If any one of them does not accept his ruling, the last resort is to go for international arbitration. For the Indian side to feel its stand has been vindicated since most of Pakistan's objections have to be put aside or for Pakistan to begin an agitation against the expert's findings, is to play political games. The waters of the three western rivers of the Indus system: the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum, go to Pakistan though India can use them to generate electricity. Pakistan's objections centred around the spillways, the size of the water stored. The neutral expert resolved all these differences fairly. The larger question remains of how disputes are to be tackled in future. Many experts have observed that the wars of the 21st century will be over water, as demand grows while supply is constant. The water shortage is already upon us and will only intensify in the decades ahead. With global warming many regions may also get lower rainfall. There is no long-term alternative to water being used more sensibly. At present agriculture consumes 80 to 90 per cent all water. Drip irrigation reduces the water needed by a half. There will be many other complex factors at play as the environment comes under increasing pressure. While sugarcane gives another energy source in ethanol, it consumes an inordinate amount of water. In all the adjustments and fine tuning that will have to be done we need to discourage an agitational approach to the sharing of river waters. There is much else to worry about. ?