The troubled waters of Godavari
A fresh row has erupted between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh over the Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project. The project, which will divert 200 tmc ft of Godavari water to the Krishna and Penna basins, aims to provide drinking and irrigation water to the drought-hit Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh.
The Andhra Pradesh government has already submitted the pre-feasibility report on the project to the Central Water Commission (CWC). The CWC has now asked the State to now furnish a detailed project report (DPR).
In addition, the Centre has offered to fund 50% of the total cost of the project, which is an estimated ₹80,000 crore, as part of the interlinking of rivers; the remaining will be financed through borrowing beyond the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) limits. This has upset Telangana as the Centre had reduced the State's borrowing limits under the FRBM Act citing the State's off-budget borrowings to complete the Kaleshwaram project on time.
Both the Congress, which is in power in Telangana, and the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), which is in the Opposition, believe that the project violates the State's riparian rights regarding Godavari waters as well as the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
But the two parties are also busy blaming each other for 'allowing' Andhra Pradesh to plan the project. The other significant Opposition party in the State — the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — has remained largely silent. This is possibly because the BJP government at the Centre has the support of the Telugu Desam Party, the ruling party of Andhra Pradesh. This, the Telangana government believes, has given the Andhra Pradesh government the advantage of getting things done with quick approvals from the Centre.
Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy and Minister for Irrigation N. Uttam Kumar Reddy squarely blamed the previous BRS government for Andhra Pradesh's decision to take up the Godavari diversion project. They cited the first apex council meeting of September 21, 2016, as evidence. That was when the then Chief Minister, K. Chandrasekhar Rao, had stated that 3,000 tmc ft of Godavari water discharges into the sea on average annually and could instead be utilised if there was an 'understanding' between the two States.
The BRS objected to this argument saying Mr. Rao had also 'raised objections over the diversion of water from the Godavari to the Krishna without prior consultation of Telangana' during the same apex council meeting.
Former Minister for Irrigation, T. Harish Rao, said that the Congress is deliberately misleading the people. He alleged that Andhra Pradesh was conspiring to divert Godavari waters to claim rights on it in the future by seeking re-allocation of water by the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal. He termed the Congress government's 'soft approach' to the project as a 'mortgaging of Telangana's water rights' and said that this was 'Mr. Revanth Reddy's 'gurudakshina' to his political mentor N. Chandrababu Naidu'. Mr. Rao said that just as the late Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy had diverted Krishna waters from Srisailam to the non-basin (Penna) areas by expanding the Pothireddypadu Head Regulator, now Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu was diverting Godavari waters at the cost of Telangana's riparian rights.
Mr. Naidu emphasised that the project is essential. Arguing that the Godavari has ample surplus water, he asked why Telangana should object to the use of water that was anyway flowing into the sea. The BRS in turn demanded to know why the Andhra Pradesh government had objected to the Kaleshwaram project if ample water was indeed available in the Godavari.
The President of the Telangana Retired Engineers' Association, M. Shyamprasad Reddy, suggested that the Centre carry out the appraisal of the Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project only after protecting the rights of the people of Telangana by giving permissions/clearances/approvals to all the ongoing and contemplated projects in the Godavari basin. The former chief engineer also suggested that the Centre additionally allocate more than 200 tmc ft of water in the Krishna basin in lieu of the diversion of Godavari water to other basins.
Water-sharing is a sensitive issue and is linked to the economy and regional sentiments. The Centre would do well to be as unbiased as possible when dealing with inter-State water disputes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Are farmers being taxed for water usage? Union government answers
Recent social media posts claimed that the Centre planned to tax water usage for farming. The Union Government has denied these claims. The Ministry of Jal Shakti called the reports inaccurate. PIB Fact Check confirmed the claim is false. The confusion arose from misinterpreting the M-CADWM scheme. The ministry clarified that agriculture and water are state subjects. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads PIB Fact Check confirms claim is false Clarification from the Ministry Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Recently, several social media posts have gone viral, claiming that the Centre intends to impose a tax on water usage for farming activities. These claims have sparked concerns within the farming community and resulted in huge Union Government has officially denied any such plan to impose a tax on water usage for agricultural purposes. The Ministry of Jal Shakti issued a clarification on June 27, 2025, labelling such reports as "inaccurate and misleading".Setting the record straight, the official PIB Fact Check account confirmed that the claim is false. The Ministry of Jal Shakti has also intervened to provide clarity on the matter. Union Jal Shakti Minister C.R. Patil, in a recent press conference, reiterated that no such tax or user fee has been mandated by the central to the Jal Shakti Ministry, the confusion seems to stem from a misinterpretation of the Modernization of Command Area Development and Water Management (M-CADWM) scheme, which is being implemented under the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY).This pilot scheme aims to improve irrigation efficiency, ensure equitable water distribution, and introduce modern technology, like pressurised pipeline networks, IoT devices, and SCADA systems for better water management. More importantly, there is no provision in this project requiring farmers to pay user charges for water usage, the ministry said in the statement released on June 27, ministry, in the statement, also emphasised a constitutional point: "agriculture" and "water" are both state subjects. This means any decision about levying water usage fees for farming lies entirely with individual state governments, not the Centre. If Water User Associations (WUAs) or other bodies eventually decide to impose charges, it would be at the discretion of the respective state governments, not due to a central ministry also urged the public and media to confirm information before disseminating it, since it can cause needless fear among farmers. Misinformation campaigns only hurt the interests of the farming community, the administration stressed, and transparency is a top concern.
India Today
27 minutes ago
- India Today
Why framers of India's Constitution didn't include secular in it
Speaking on the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the Emergency, RSS general secretary, Dattatreya Hosabale, questioned the inclusion of the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. While the Congress attacked the RSS and BJP after Hosabale's remarks, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Union Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh backed the idea that the inclusion of the two words needs to be said the inclusion of the terms in the Preamble during the Indira Gandhi-imposed Emergency was a "travesty of justice" and "sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana".Interestingly, the argument that Hosabale made of the term not being in the original draft of the Indian Constitution is not lone use of the term 'secular' in the original Constitution was in Article 25-2A. Here it was used to refer to "political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice", and not to describe the nature of the said, "Yes, the ideas of socialism and secularism existed through the rules and policies of the government, but that is different. However, it must be questioned whether 'secular' and 'socialist' should remain in the Constitution or not because the makers of the Constitution did not originally include this.""This was not added by Babasaheb but during the Emergency when democratic rights and the legislature were dysfunctional. Hence, such questions must be addressed today," the RSS functionary a political ideology, secularism is the absolute separation of the state from religion, but in the Indian context, it has meant equal respect to all religions. The Indian state is neither anti-religion nor strictly as the Constitution is secular in its spirit, both BR Ambedkar and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru did not believe that it adhered to the dictionary understanding of the term Constituent Assembly agreed that while it was required in spirit, the official inclusion of the term 'secular' would have impeded the necessitated interventions towards ending discrimination and affirmative THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATESKT Shah, an eminent economist, advocate and socialist, proposed to add to clause (1) of Article 1 that read, "India shall be a", the words – secular, federal and regard to the secular character of the Indian State, he said, "We have been told time and again from every platform, that ours is a secular state. If that is true, if that holds well, I do not see why the term could not be added or inserted in the constitution itself, once again, to guard against any possibility of misunderstanding or misapprehension."However, he added, "The term secular, I agree, does not find place necessarily in constitutions on which ours seems to have been modelled."To this, the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee, Dr BR Ambedkar, expressed his inability to accept such a justified it by stating, "The Constitution is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State."For him, the Constitution was not a mechanism for deciding the policy of the state. Rather, the people themselves should actively shape the Constitution in accordance to their social and economic did not see the need to, as he said, "tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves".He also called the proposed amendment "superfluous" as there are other provisions in the Constitution, rather than fundamental rights that obligate the State to be secular, social, and federal in members, such as HV Kamath, argued that, if at all, the term can be added to the Preamble but not to the Constitution, especially within the first article, which talks about 'Union and its Territories and Jurisdictions'.Ambedkar strongly argued, "It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether," and the motion was negated by the Vice Jawaharlal Nehru asked the members of the constituent assembly demanding the inclusion of the term 'secular' to consult the by how this debate had been brought up numerous times, he said, 'It has a great deal of importance, no doubt. But it is brought in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular state we have done something amazingly generous, given something out of our pocket to the rest of the world, something which we ought not to have done."For him, the inclusion of the word would be a superficial assertion of having done something 'mighty'.ANCIENT CULTURE OF INDIA WAS NOT SECULARIndia has practised the "principled equidistance" model of secularism, which is engaging with all religions without favouring one over the assembly member, HV Kamath, distinguished the Indian model of secularism by saying, 'When I say that a State should not identify itself with any particular religion, I do not mean to say that a State should be anti-religious or irreligious."Propagating 'dharma' or duty to be the religion of the State, he said, 'A secular state is neither a God-less State nor an irreligious nor an anti-religious State."Another member, Loknath Misra, mentioned India's history to argue that religion cannot be divorced from life and the term 'Secular State' cannot be "a device to bypass the ancient culture of the land". For him, the inclusion of the term 'secular' would require all the rights related to religion in the Constitution to be strongest argument against the inclusion of 'secular' in the Constitution was that it would negate the various religious Ian Copland justified the exclusion of the term on two grounds in his book, 'A History of State and Religion in India'. One, the Protestant concept of 'enlightened secularism' did not suit a country where the rulers and religious public have since times immemorial interacted with each other. Two, adding the term might make the public think that the government 'had religion in its sight'.So, while the future of India was rooted in the idea of secularism, it was not the European model but a contextualised Indian model taking into account by the framers of the DEMOCRACY IS AN IDEAL TO BE AIMED FORThe Articles such as 15(4), 16(5), 17, 25, and 45 already laid down rules as to how, even with the right to religion enshrined as a fundamental right, certain practices within religions are unconstitutional and even the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, enacted the 42nd Amendment Act in1976 while the country was in a state of national emergency and added the term 'secular' to the Preamble to the Indian Constitution.A member argued, 'What is the use of calling India a secular State if you allow religious instruction to be imparted to young boys and girls?', while another questioned the validity of legislating through private laws.A long debate was then held over the need for a uniform civil code, the meaning of religious instruction, apprehension over the freedom to propagate religion and the future of minority rights in a secular this, Nehru evoked the idea of a "secular democracy" and stated, "It is an ideal to be aimed at and every one of us whether we are Hindus or Muslims, Sikhs or Christians, whatever we are, none of us can say in his heart of hearts that he has no prejudice and no taint of communalism in his mind or heart."'SECULAR' AN ATTACK ON SPIRIT OF CONSTITUTIONSpeaking at the book release of 'Ambekar's Messages', the Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankar called the addition of the words to the Preamble a 'betrayal' and 'sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana'.He said, "The Preamble of the Indian Constitution is unique. Except Bharat (no other) Constitution's Preamble has undergone change, and why? Preamble is not changeable'.Hence, what Hosabale said is not untrue, and he has been joined by others in his criticism of the 42nd Amendment, which added 'secular' to the Congress leaders and the larger opposition have called this an attack on the Constitution, Union Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh backed a review of the inclusion of the terms 'socialist' and 'secular'.Chouhan said that the core of Indian Culture is 'Sarva Dharma Sambhav' (equal respect to all) and not 'dharma nirpeksh' (secular). With this he demanded the removal of the supported Hosabale by saying that Ambedkar crafted 'one of the best Constitutions in the world and if it was not his thinking, then with what thought did someone add these terms'.Chief Minister of Kerala Pinarayi Vijayan called this uproar by the RSS 'sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism'.He said, 'Invoking the Emergency to discredit these principles (secularism and socialism) is a deceitful move, especially when the RSS itself colluded with the Indira Gandhi government during the time for its own survival'.There was consensus among the framers of the Indian Constitution that India should not be a theocratic state and there was also debate about 'secular' was the right term to define otherwise. Though a decision was made, the debate continues, 75 years on, because Indira Gandhi included the term during the Emergency when most opposition leaders were hounded underground or packed into jails.- Ends advertisement
Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
Did Shashi Tharoor misspell ‘concern' while thanking Suhel Seth? Netizens react – ‘Oxford dictionary 2025 version'
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor misspelt 'concern' as 'condern' in a social media post on June 30. Tharoor, otherwise known for his extensive vocabulary, rarely makes such spelling errors. How did the mistake occur by someone who uses long and less commonly heard English words? Well, Tharoor was responding to a post by businessman Suhel Seth, who had met the Congress leader and shared a picture on X. 'Just met Shashi Tharoor and am conderned about his throat: he's nursing a cold…,' Seth wrote. Tharoor was in London on Sunday for a media event. Tharoor, the Thiruvananthapuram MP, responded: 'Thank you for your 'condern' Suhel Seth! Grateful that you condign to be conderned! Watch out — some may condemn you for that!" Netizens reacted to mispelling by Tharoor. 'Condern will enter in Oxford's dictionary 2025 version,' one X user said. Shashi Tharoor's command of the English language is acknowledged even within his own party, so much so that Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge recently remarked that Tharoor was included in the Congress Working Committee for his linguistic prowess. "Shashi Tharoor's English is very good, that's why he has been taken in the CWC (Congress Working Committee). I supported this," Kharge said at a press conference last week when asked about Tharoor's praise for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Tharoor's remarks praising PM Modi have seemingly irked Tharoor's party and widened the growing cracks in his ties with its leadership. In an article published in The Hindu earlier this month, Congress MP Tharoor said Prime Minister Narendra Modi's energy, dynamism and willingness to engage remain a 'prime asset' for India on the global stage but deserve greater backing. Tharoor said the diplomatic outreach following "Operation Sindoor" was a moment of national resolve and effective communication. 'Prime Minister Narendra Modi's energy, dynamism and willingness to engage remain a prime asset for India on the global stage but deserve greater backing,' Tharoor wrote. Tharoor's praise for the prime minister comes at a time when the Congress has been consistently attacking the Modi government over its foreign policy. The Congress party even said that diplomacy was being "shattered" and the country stands "isolated" globally, more so after Pakistan's army chief General Asim Munir had a lunch meeting in Washington DC with US President Donald Trump a few days ago. Thank you for your 'condern' Suhel Seth! Grateful that you condign to be conderned! Tharoor, who took the India case post Operation Sindoor in foreign countries while heading an all-party delegation earlier this month, has, with his remarks, seemingly riled his party for showing support for the Narendra Modi government over recent military actions across the border in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
