Karnataka stood its ground against Goa's plea for a second site inspection of the Kalasa Nala project at the 4th meeting of the Progressive River Authority for Welfare and Harmony (PRAWAH) held in Bengaluru on Tuesday. The Authority has now decided to consult its counsel for legal opinion after Goa sought to move the Supreme Court.
The PRAWAH meeting exemplified the troubling dynamics of regional river politics, where power disparities threaten the livelihood and ecological sanctity of a state that deserves better representation and consideration in water-sharing negotiations. One glaring injustice that emerged from the meeting is that Karnataka was allowed a representation of 30 officials, while Goa was scarcely represented by a mere three delegates. Such a discrepancy is emblematic of broader systemic issues, highlighting a power imbalance that leaves Goa at a disadvantage. Not only does this unequal representation raise concerns about the seriousness of the discussions, but it ultimately undermines the principles of fairness that underlie the PRAWAH’s mandate.
The meeting unfolded with Karnataka objecting to Goa's request for a joint site inspection of the controversial Mhadei project "because the matter is subjudice", currently awaiting Supreme Court deliberation. The question is, why was an inspection allowed last year when the matter was still before the top court? If Karnataka asserts that ongoing legal proceedings preempt any practical discussion about the project, one might question the legitimacy of the PRAWAH itself. Such dissonance indicates that Karnataka is conveniently shifting its narrative to hide its wrongdoing while PRAWAH nods like a silent spectator.
Goa’s plight in this matter isn’t merely one of representation or procedural adherence but one of serious existential threat. So then, we need to ask, what is the role of PRAWAH? To submit meekly to the highhandedness of the bigger State? Or go with what Karnataka wants? In fact, all along the Authority seems to be perpetually bound by Karnataka’s political manoeuvres.
We find the PRAWAH hearings a farce because the body appears increasingly disconnected from its objectives, serving as little more than a platform for politically influential Karnataka to assert control. Goa stands in danger of becoming a passive player in decisions that affect its resources and environment, enduring what can only be perceived as systematic subjugation.
There is intrigue about the Virdi dam issue too. Goa's approval of the once controversial Maharashtra's Virdi dam project comes as a surprise because at one point we were considering potential implications for Goa. Goa’s prior vehement objections appear to have evaporated, leading many to ponder what has changed to allow such a significant shift in policy. The state government owes its constituents a transparent explanation as to whether political dealings with Maharashtra, another BJP-ruled state, have influenced this approval.
As the dialogue around the Mhadei water dispute continues, the onus is on the Goa government to assert its rightful claim to represent and protect its resources. If the current trajectory continues, it may not be long before Goa's voice is stifled entirely in the cacophony of regional politics, leaving a lasting legacy of injustice for generations to come. The power to effect change lies not only in legal arenas but also in the courage to demand equitable treatment in essential discussions about natural resources while we still can.
