Talk:Kaveri River water dispute

Reference 17 is not reliable. It has POV statements like "The answer to this lies in history, which we cannot re-write now." It never states that all laws passed by occupying country are mute after independence in 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDC3:A9D0:0:0:0:3ED (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This section needs to be further broken down. I guess its too big. The 18th and the 19th centuary events can be in one subsection whereas the 20th century preindependence can be in the other. This is make it easier to read. If there is no issues from others I will do the changes after a couple of days.Wikiality123 11:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was going to bring this up myself. Not just the length of the narrative, but I feel that it is also a little incoherent. I also hope that there has been no copyvio. I wanted to clarify this with user:Rajachandra before I made any changes. I havent gotten down to doing that yet. I'd appreciate if you could talk to him and do what needs to be done. Thanks. Sarvagnya 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

well if you feel the need to edit or chop my additions, i have no issues with it. thanks User:Rajachandra

The entry does not talk provide any data to substantiate. Important data are the agricultural area benefitting from Kaveri waters in both states from 1800s to 2000s. This will show all the truth abouth who humungously increased the areas, and who has been serverly constrained end.

The logic behind british government giving Veto to presidency of madras, all can be traced just to that data.

Also there are complete factual irregularities, like Pondicherry being carved out of madras presidency.

• Yes. There ARE indeed factual inaccuracies. There is indeed some information that needs to make it into the article. that is exactly why i have the underconstruction tag there.
• As for the agricultural area benefiting both states, it is there. i dont know if you deleted it when you edited it, but i had mentioned the areas. As it stands today, it is 11 lakh acres for K and 28 lakh acres for TN.
• In any case, the article is far from complete, especially the events from 97-98 to 2006 are yet to make it into the article. Your reverting the article to your version is not helping me in finishing the article. Please refrain from doing so. In the next couple of weeks, I will be adding all the references, citations etc and also hopefully expand the article to cover the developments from 97-98 to 2006 also. I urge you to refrain from editing or reverting the article repeatedly. Sarvagnya 15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The data as it stand does not make any sense to the issue. Give the data, which says karnatka had just few hundred acres of Kaveri water irrigated land, and TN had 70 lakh acres. Provide information of how mass displacement had been effected and how lives of millions of farmers have been affected by the reduction of 70Lakh acres to 23 Lakhs, purely due to the greed of a set of fanatics. I urge you to finish with this one sided propoganda ASAP so that, i can revamp it completely.

• 60% TN 40% KA rest 10% Kerala and pondichery

This totals upto 110% which is not possible. I'm not able to find a proper referenced article of the same. Can someone try fix this. But altertatively if this be replaced by verbalising the Basin area data from the table stated in the article the %s would work out as 54% TN, 42% K'taka.

• In the history of dispute it is stated that The dam was planned to be built in two stages. In the first stage a capacity of 11 TMC was envisioned, while in the second stage the full capacity was set to be realized. Madras however, refused to give its consent for this move as it had its own plans to build a storage dam at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC.

The above statement marginalises Madras since according to the source I have (http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bcid/research/papers/Paper3.pdf - refer page 20) Madras had agreed for both the faces but for the second phase if Mysore promises to assured that Madras wont be ADVERSELY EFFECTED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiality123 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

• Please note that to the best of my knowledge none of the data in the article is "Original Research". If you find anything which you think is WP:OR or WP:POV, please discuss it on the talk page before you edit.

• The information in this article has been collected from dozens and dozens of sources though the bulk of it might be from around half a dozen articles. So I request you to please go through atleast all the references provided in full detail. I will be adding many many external links in the days to come.

• Some of the information(these instances are very rare) may vary between sources. In such cases, I've used the version cited by most people/sources, in other words I've used the most popular version.

• The article badly needs some tables and pictures to enhance clarity. I will be adding couple of tables, but if somebody can help me with the pictures, I'll be grateful. For the pictures, its my guess that pics from newspaper articles can be used claiming 'fair use' because, I've seen such pics being shared across articles. For instance, I came across a pdf file about this issue which was in French but had used pictures from The Hindu.

• The info about 2002-2006 is unreferenced as yet and I have written it from memory(of all the things I've read in the last many weeks). So there may be minor inaccuracies which I will fix in course of time.

• Regarding 1991 riots, unfortunately, not much information is forthcoming on the internet, mainly because there was no internet those days and also because online archives of newspapers like The Hindu and the Deccan Herald dont go that far back. I have made only a mention of the riots and I'll be adding a few more lines now. Whatever info we find about it on the internet, unfortunately is limited to stating the fact that horrible riots took place and many were killed. But even with such things as the number of killed, number displaced etc., there is some disagreement between different sources.

Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

On second thoughts, I feel we should rename "Kaveri River Water Dispute" to just "Kaveri Dispute". I am not sure how to go about it. Please share your thoughts. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Consider below sentences which can be termed POV or harsh commentery , try to put them in milder tone.

• While the state of Tamil Nadu has historically enjoyed a vastly greater usage of the waters compared to Karnataka, Karnataka on the other hand feels that it is being denied its fair share of the waters

• however, thanks to the genius of Sir.M.V and the foresight of the King

• In other words, it was made clear once again that British (and hence Madras) interests came first and scant regard, if any, would be shown to competing interests.

• Karnataka ’s irrigated area was a mere 4.2 lakh acres

• The one sided nature of the so-called agreement was there for everyone to see.

• Karnataka was thus forced to accept the interim award

• Tamil Nadu slapped another contempt petition on Karnataka

• the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the CRA

• This also however, fell on deaf ears...

Mahawiki 03:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

For some reason I feel this whole article is too lopsided in support of Karnataka.

Making the above mentioned statements of Mahawiki to milder tone, does not make this a neutral article. This is still a very loopsided article, nothing short of a Karnatka propoganda. There are only two options available, either to have the NPOV tag in this article, or change the title to "Kaveri River Water Dispute - Karnataka point of view". If the author tries to put all onsided view, concealed as neutral views, it is unacceptable and unethical, against the values for which wikipedia stands for. As i mentioned in the first comment on the edit page, the "Kaveri water dispute" does not need a big article with so many words, One table in the following structure encompasses everything that is there about the dispute. If the author can provide this information in the article, then NPOV tag can be removed. Else the NPOV tag has to remain in this one sided article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsnathan (talk • contribs)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsnathan (talk • contribs)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsnathan (talk • contribs)

• First of all, I am not sure if a table on the lines of the above two is necessary or is within the scope of this article. And in any case, you should observe that all the information you want to be included in the above tables is not given for any of the states. If you have information to fill in the tables above feel free to fill it in and it can be added to the article if everyone feels that it is within the scope of the article. And come to think of your table, these states didnt even exist until 1956 and if you observe, I've taken care to link to Kingdom of Mysore for "Mysore" before 1956 and to Madras Presidency for "Madras" before 1956. So the way it stands, your tag is unnecessary
• Also, I will add many more external links and maybe some for refs in the coming days and do another round of cpedit to the article. Sarvagnya 21:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I urge you to preserve the NPOV tag till you do the cpedits and bring neutrality into the onsided article. As i put it earlier. You have all the right to put your view. But you do not carry the right to call it neutral. As i said earlier there are only two options, either let the NPOV tag stay or change the name of the article to "Kaveri River Water Dispute - a karnataka point of view". Else i am afraid we will have to keep getting into the endless cycle of adding and removing the NPOV tags till eternity, and i am game, for the sake of genuine neutrality against false propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.235.121 (talk • contribs)

Like I said, I request you to please point out more specifically if there is anything that needs to the article. The only thing you have said so far is the two tables you've listed above. I have already explained my views about those two tables(above). I had also solicited feedback from many other editors(most of them Tamilian) and I havent got any adverse feedback yet. Infact, Arvind even said that it seems to be a well written article. He also had said that he would take a look at it more closely(you can find our correspondences on our talk pages).

Once again, if there is anything specific that you have to say about the article, I welcome it and I will fix it. Please let me know. But tagging the article without even spelling out your concerns is not good. Thanks. Sarvagnya 04:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think Arvind is from Karnataka. (And that does not rule out that he is disinterested). Praveen pillay 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to let everyone know, I have started another thorough cpedit of the article. I will also be fixing the refs/external links etc.,. Hope this will answer any concerns the above user or anyone else might have. Please bear with me during the cpedit. It may take a few days though. Sarvagnya 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see User:Praveen Pillay is expressing some concerns. First of all, let me apologise for not working on this article since I posted the message above. The reason was that I had to go on a long wikibreak after that where I neither had access to internet nor the time to even logon. I returned a couple of weeks or so ago and have since then been on a limited internet connection and have been busy in real life. I will definitely find the time to work on this article soon. I will definitely work on it over this weekend and next weekend. I request User:Praveen to take another look after that. But, please continue to list your concerns below. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In his award, Sir. Griffin making no secret of the underlying basis for the judgment, concluded thus, “ The resolution we have arrived at, recognises the paramount importance of the existing Madras interests, has for its primary object the safeguarding of those interests and does, we believe, safeguard them effectually. ”

In other words, it was made clear once again that British (and hence Madras) interests came first and every effort would be made to safegaurd the same.

This is definitely reading between the lines and POV. Sir. Griffin might have said it because he realized that state controlling upstream has inherent advantage in that they can block the water at any time they want. Karnataka did block water even after Supreme court order, didn't it? (A fact which was glossed over in the article)

I will do little bit research and come up with other objections if any.

Praveen pillay 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I have changed the wordings and also added couple of refs. But these werent the refs I had in mind. I have them bookmarked elsewhere and will try to find them soon. Sarvagnya 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS: I am going to wait for your reply for another 10 days. If there is no reply, I am going to delete the section as it seems heavily POV. Thanks

Do you have any proof for the statement above?

2. "As a result of Tamil Nadu’s protests, Karnataka had to fund the construction under the non-plan head and this led to a severe strain on its finances."

Could you please tell me the relevance of sentence modifier "led to severe strain on its finances"? If somebody incurs loss due to violating an agreement, should that loss bother anybody?

• Yes. I do have a reference for this one too. I will find it soon for you. As for your claim that Ktaka 'incurred loss' because it violated an agreement, well that is false. Ktaka did not violate any agreement in building the Harangi dam. If you think it did, it is for you to come up with proper references to prove that. As for me, I can prove that

1. Karnataka began construction of Harangi in 1977
2. TN objected and went to court
3. Ktaka had to fund the construction under non-plan fund because of that.
4. This led to severe strain on Ktaka's finances. Sarvagnya

3. The table in the top is provided by Karnataka. I believe it could potentially have been modified tampered with. It does not give the figures in the past years. I.e. The basin area in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 could indicate the rate of development (I will try to find it). Praveen pillay 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Your claim is preposterous. If you believe that Karnataka has tampered with any figures, feel free to take your case to the Supreme Court of India. Anyway, I have added references for all the figures from a website that has logs of court proceedings of the Supreme Court. This ref gives figures that both Ktaka and TN have provided and if you observe the percentages, you'll see that there is hardly any difference. Thanks. Sarvagnya 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I said earler, I am waiting for a revamp by Sarvagnya who said he will do it in 10 days. My suggestion of article flow would be

1. Introduction (neutral)

2. History or origin(neutral)

3. Tamilnadu POV

4. Karnataka POV (Interchange the order of 3&4 if you want)

5. Tribunal & verdict

Lets make it a NPOV article and improve.

I will start re-writing the article in the coming weekend or next Monday (If Sarvagnya needs coming weekend too).

Praveen pillay 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have followed Sarvagnya's lead and started removing information which are non cited/cited from dispute party website .

Praveen pillay 23:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• What you are doing is bordering on vandalism. I had told you to give me 10 days time and you had agreed. 10 days expires on Sunday. Take a look after that and voice your concerns. For now, I will be reverting your edits.
• As for your contention that the figures are taken from Ktaka govt., website, I can tell you that the figures are widely available on several websites including the National water commission website and even websites of Tamil Nadu press like that of the Hindu. For many of the facts and figures here, I can cite not one but multiple sources. So just hold your horses until Monday and stop reverting. Sarvagnya 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What did I revert? It is you who keeps reverting when something is written which is not your POV. See the history.

I strongly feel that you have no authority to decide which is vandalism and which is not. Since you have voiced your opinion of my edits I have to let you know of What I feel about your edits. I feel that if somebody writes something which is not your POV, you wait for some time and then systematically vandalize the page.

Where is citation for the statement "While all these discussions went on, Tamil Nadu’s irrigated lands had grown humongously, while Karnataka ’s had stagnated. Tamil Nadu’s irrigated area stood at a huge 24 lakh acres while Karnataka ’s irrigated area was a mere 4.2 lakh acres. The one sided nature of the so-called agreement was there for everyone to see."?

This is an opinion of biased author. If you don't give me citations (neutral origin), I will have to eliminate that portion.

Also the Griffin statement is pure speculation and quoting out of context. I will have remove that portion too. I am going to wait till Sunday to give you time. Then I am going to modify the flow of article to present both Karnataka & Tamilnadu versions of the story. Have fun.

Praveen pillay 01:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In further, Sir Griffin's statement has been selectively stated as per to fit the author's POV. The sentences before and after the earlier quoted statement alters the whole sense of Sir Griffin's statement. Can Sarvangnya please explain why did he choose to edit Sir Griffin's statement? I am changing the statement in the article with reference.

Wikiality123 10:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have done some cpedit and added references today. But the references need a lot of cleanup. If somebody volunteer to do it, I'd be grateful. Otherwise, I'd be doing it myself in the coming week. Please take a look at the article and let me know of any concerns. Thanks. Gotta sign off for today. Sarvagnya 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article is still no way moving towards NPOV. Wikipedia suggests that 'Let the facts speak for themself'. If you have any fact with reference just quote it and you dont need put your analysis or opinion or POV tagged with it. Let me reiterate that Wikipedia is not owned or run by K'taka or TN. As sugested by one of the users previously make sections for POVs of individual states. When talking about the POV one cant avoid the claims of Kerala and Puduchery alongside the two main parties. Wikiality123 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is for a reason that I'm living with a NPOV tag on the top of this article. Believe me, I havent spent too much time editing the article, but spent loads collecting information and reading up on the issue. Because Praveen Pillay raised concerns about the numbers itself, I added references for them first. And regarding tone etc., also, I have, I believe addressed some issues. If you still have any concerns, please point out. And of course, like I've said, I will continue to work on this article. I just dont want unreasonable demands like those of Tjsnathan above(his table). If anybody has figures to fill in Tjsnathan's table, feel free to add it. I for one, havent been able to find any info since the 16th century or whatever. Sarvagnya 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. As per this agreement, Mysore was required to obtain Madras' consent for any water it wished to utilize or for any project it wished to undertake to utilize the waters.

This phrase can be misleading to the reader, which alternatively means that Mysore Kingdom was denied of its right to utilize any water from Kaveri. I do b'live that this wasnt intentional equivocating in your part.

1. Mysore had no option but to accept the decision and proceeded with the construction.

We dont have records as far as I know of the options that were open for the King. So it would be easier to simply state that Mysore accepted the decision and proceeded with the construction.

1. This raised Madras' hackles and the dispute continued.

Is it so necessary to use the word hackles? Cant it be just mentioned as Madras opposed...

In other words, it was made clear once again that British (and hence Madras) interests came first and every effort would be made to safegaurd the same.

Makes no sense with the corrected version of Sir Griffin's statement and its K'taka's POV. Also note that Sir Griffin's award was accepted by Mysore but not by Madras. So the POV doesnt even have a logic behind it.

There are much more POVs as we go through the article further

It is much easier for me to rewrite the whole article and I can assure that it wouldnt hold high agenda of any of the states involved. But since Sarvagnya has volunteered to make the corrections I will wait for the changes to be made. But if the article is not moving towards a NPOV, I'm sorry that I will have to start editing it. Please do not accuse of vandalism as this article has been with a NPOV tag for a long time now. You had asked for time till last Sunday which is over and the little changes I see is not moving the article to NPOV.

Wikiality123 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree Wikiality123. I feel this article is not at all NPOV and as I discussed above, its time to rewrite. I have given a probable flow of article in above discussion (giving both parties' views). Sarvagnya told he needs till yesterday to do a 'major' editing. He got that but still the article is POV. He didn't explain why he selectively quoted Griffin to alter the meaning drastically. Anyways, I'll be working on this article now and if you need any help, please do ask me. Praveen 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Dear Wikiality and PP - Among the POV issues you've raised above, 1 and 2 may sound POVish. But 3 is certainly just a question of style. I used hackles because I dont want to be using '...met with resistance...', '... was opposed...' etc., on every consecutive line. And I dont see how 'raised hackles...' can be POV.
• And in any case, even if there are POVs in the article, I refuse to acknowledge the insinuation that I am pushing a POV. As you can see, this is a fairly long article which I've put together from dozens(possibly hundreds) of articles and I put them all together fairly quickly. If it has suffered in narration, it can certainly be fixed. That is what 'cpediting' is for. Declaring '5 days!! 10 days!!' etc., time constraints and holding the article and somebody else's efforts to ransom is not the way to go.
• Let me suggest something. I request you to go through the article once and point out if there are any factual inaccuracies. If there are, I'll be more than happy to fix it or put in a reference to support my figures.
• While you do that(look for 'factual inaccuracies') I'll go about cleaning up the references and adding external links.
• Once that is done, we'll go section by section and work on the language, tone etc.,.
• And as for me putting in 'my analysis, opinion' etc., I am not sure I agree with you(I'll take another look). Even if you are right, you only will have to put it down to the fact that I've gathered information from several articles written by 'notable' people in 'notable' sources. And none of these articles are free of the writer's analysis, opinion etc.,. And while putting this article together, I've given equal weightage to everyone's views. For example, it is a fact that S M Krishna's padayatra was seen as a gimmick by some while others(like U R Ananthamurthy saw it as a good faith effort and joined him in the padayatra. It is a fact that there was a flare up and high drama in 2002. It is a fact that 'belligerence on both sides hit a crescendo. It is a fact that it degenerated into a 'free for all with all and sundry taking to the streets'. These are not my analyses, but this is how almost every single 'notable' source(from both sides) has characterised the episode. If anything, what I've written is watered down versions of experts' analyses. I may, at best only be guilty of reproducing experts' analyses and I have done that solely to maintain a flow in narration And such things can only be fixed during several rounds of copyediting. No article, least of all an article like this one, can end up in 'finished state' or FA-state on the first go.

• So please go through the article for any 'factual inaccuracies' while I'll start cleaning up the references and make fixes for tone, POV, style etc., where I can. If you find anything being stated as 'fact', and if isnt supported by a citation, feel free to make use of the {fact} or {citation needed} tags. And I will add them. This in my opinion should take a week or two. Once we are through with that and have a stable article, we'll see how to weave in the "Karnataka POV" and "Tamil Nadu POV" sections. If you want, you can even come up with a draft for those two sections and we can assemble it straight into the article. Sarvagnya 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Even though you have not answered the main question of why you quoted only part of Griffin's statement so as to modify the meaning of the statement, I see your reply above is in good faith. I consider your reply to be constructive and I will try to make a draft for the POVs of both states. I may be wrong but I am of the view that the finished article should not flame more hatred from both sides. I think, the article should present the problem as between the people from upper and lower portion of basin. Not as a problem between states since the states as a whole do not contribute or use water. I am ready for a open dialog where everyone has a unprejudiced view on the whole thing. Thanks and have a blessed day!Praveen 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the npov tag because the article has changed considerably since the tag was last added. If anybody feels that it is still POV, they should add the tag to whichever section they feel is POV. And ofcourse, I'll continue to clean up the refs etc., and check for tone also. Sarvagnya 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just read this article for the first time an hour back and feel that it has a rather pro-Karnataka tone. After reading through the discussion page, I found that this is the case even after making it milder. I can only imagine how bad the original write up would have been. Some of the parts that need to be rewritten, along with my comments:

1. The first table in the article named "A snapshot of the numbers":

a) Why add a row for "What Tamilnadu demands" ? Why not also include what Karnataka demands other states' share should be. If they can demand 465 tmcft for themselves, they must have come up with some numbers for other states too. So, either add a new row "What Karnataka demands" or remove the row "What Tamilnadu demands".

b) Rename the row "What they demand" to something more specific, since those numbers are what each state wants for itself. It could be "What they demand as their share" or "What they demand for themselves" etc.

2. One piece of information that has not been considered (and which I'm unable to quickly gather...but will continue trying) is what percentage of the river basin is "cultivable" in both states. Karnataka may have 42% of the basin area, but a significant portion of the river in that state flows through the Western Ghats, a terrain which may not as cultivable as the fertile delta region in Tamil nadu. This information needs to be considered when assessing whether the apparent "unfairness" in the irrigated area is only due to Madras having the upper hand historically. While the '07 verdict may have considered this statistic, this article needs to at least make a mention of it, to seem neutral.

As an illustration one can refer to the Krishna water sharing http://www.cicero.uio.no/humsec/papers/Lenin%20Babu%20et%20al.pdf. (As an aside, I just realized that most of this article has been taken over verbatim from this source, which is a paper written by a group of Kannadigas... no wonder the article shows the bias. Funny how that paper introduces the states in pages 7 and 8.. Karnataka apparently is the "economic power in south india" and TN is known "mainly for temples". What a bunch of jokers !!!). Anyway, if one looks at the Krishna water sharing, even though Karnataka has about 43.7% of the basin area, it has been awarded only 34% of the water. I think the missing link here is the share of real cultivable area.

So, let's try and add that information to the current article. If statistics are hard to come by, we should acknowledge the possibility of the %age cultivable area being lesser in Karnataka and tone down the rhetoric on historical injustice.

3. In the section "Nineties and beyond" it says that the irrigated area in TN grew to 28 lakh acres. Please refer to the source reference [8] http://www.cicero.uio.no/humsec/papers/Lenin%20Babu%20et%20al.pdf. On page 9, it clearly mentions that the irrigated area in TN was 28 lakh acres by 1974, while Karnataka was 6.8 lakhs. So, between 1974 and the nineties Karnataka has almost doubled its irrigated area, while (if the number mentioned in the section is true) TN has not added anything. This section needs scrubbing.

4. In the section "Crisis of 95-96", I quote the following: "In 1995, the monsoons failed badly in Karnataka and Karnataka found itself hard pressed to fulfil the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of at least 30 TMC" So, does the author know that the monsoon failed in TN too and that is why they were demanding their fair share. Or, are these too many words to mention, lest the reader lose his sympathy on Karnataka ???

I can go on more, I'm going to stop here and see how these comments are being addressed. I feel this article, as it stands now, needs the NPOV tag at the earliest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.4.123 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

If the Kaveri River dispute is not between two Dravidian civilizations (Tamils and Kannadigas), then who is it between, the Chinese and Japanese? Or is it between the Punjabis and Gujuratis? Your rash unsourced statement is confusing me.Wiki Raja 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

None of my statements are rash or unsourced. You cannot tag every south indian topic with dravidian civilization template. You did the same thing with your another template "dravidian topics" and that got deleted, with the community consensus. Now you have been tagging with this different template. I again repeat, this dispute has got absolutely nothing to with any civilization, let alone so called "dravidian civilization". - KNM ^Talk 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then who is it between? Wiki Raja 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is explained well through out the article. - KNM ^Talk 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article explains that it is between Tamils and Kannadigas. Wiki Raja 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, not just that. Please read the article again, completely. Also, let us stop doing original research. If you have a notable reference which clearly tells this dispute is related to any of the so called civilizations, please provide them. - KNM ^Talk 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have read the whole article and all I see that it is between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Wiki Raja 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It is between Karnataka and TN and Pondicherry and Kerala. So? Can you demonstrate how these states represent your cooked up 'Dravidian civilisations'?? Sarvagnya 01:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see that you dislike/ do not want to be associated with Dravidian Civilization. But it is believed that Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Tulu etc are Dravidian languages and majority of the people in these states are Dravidian

 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthorvey (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

"a) Why add a row for "What Tamilnadu demands" ? Why not also include what Karnataka demands other states' share should be. If they can demand 465 tmcft for themselves, they must have come up with some numbers for other states too. So, either add a new row "What Karnataka demands" or remove the row "What Tamilnadu demands".

b) Rename the row "What they demand" to something more specific, since those numbers are what each state wants for itself. It could be "What they demand as their share" or "What they demand for themselves" etc...."

• 'What they demand' is most definitely and obviously 'What they demand as their share' or 'What each state demands for itself'. 'They' very obviously(and as confirmed by the column headers) refers to the states party to the dispute.

• As for why there is a row dedicated to TN, well, no other party in the dispute is pointing to any previous pattern of sharing and asking that everyone goes back to that. TN on the other hand is/was insisting that everyone just go back to the 1974 1924 pattern of distribution and honour it. The other states on the other hand are simply demanding what they think is their fair share and that is precisely what is represented in the 'What they demand' column.

2. One piece of information that has not been considered (and which I'm unable to quickly gather...but will continue trying) is what percentage of the river basin is "cultivable" in both states. Karnataka may have 42% of the basin area, but a significant portion of the river in that state flows through the Western Ghats, a terrain which may not as cultivable as the fertile delta region in Tamil nadu. This information needs to be considered when assessing whether the apparent "unfairness" in the irrigated area is only due to Madras having the upper hand historically. While the '07 verdict may have considered this statistic, this article needs to at least make a mention of it, to seem neutral.

• If you have information about what you are talking about, please feel free to add it and quote a source.

• And just as an aside, you assumption that the terrain in western ghats is not cultivable is absurd if not laughable. I am not sure if you've been to the western ghats ever, but all kinds of cash crops are grown there. I agree, the western ghats may not grow too much paddy, but it is home to coffee plantations, tea plantations, rubber plantations, spices etc.,. The western ghats is home to some of the few biodiversity hotspots in the world. I dont exactly remember reading anywhere that the parties to the dispute claimed that they'd only be growing paddy or sugarcane. And ofcourse, there's something called terrace farming.

• And again, this is the 21st century. All agriculture need not be rain fed. Agriculture is carried out in deserts also. Most of the time, all that is needed is just water. Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As an illustration one can refer to the Krishna water sharing http://www.cicero.uio.no/humsec/papers/Lenin%20Babu%20et%20al.pdf. (As an aside, I just realized that most of this article has been taken over verbatim from this source,

• I have cited all my sources and will be adding more citations and I dont think I have yet used this particular pdf as a citation anywhere yet. Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"....which is a paper written by a group of Kannadigas... no wonder the article shows the bias."

• What a joke! (First of all, may I know how you concluded that they were Kannadigas?) If that were to go by such considerations, we wouldnt have any sources at all to write. I have cited extensively from the Hindu. Should I just disregard all that because Hindu is written by tamilians?! Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Funny how that paper introduces the states in pages 7 and 8.. Karnataka apparently is the "economic power in south india" and TN is known "mainly for temples". What a bunch of jokers !!!). "

• In any case, I havent reproduced those descriptions in the articles. Have I?? So what are you whining about? Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Anyway, if one looks at the Krishna water sharing, even though Karnataka has about 43.7% of the basin area, it has been awarded only 34% of the water. I think the missing link here is the share of real cultivable area."

• Stop whining and add information if you have it. And stop mixing issues. Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"So, let's try and add that information to the current article. If statistics are hard to come by, we should acknowledge the possibility of the %age cultivable area being lesser in Karnataka and tone down the rhetoric on historical injustice."

• Please see WP:OR. Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"3. In the section "Nineties and beyond" it says that the irrigated area in TN grew to 28 lakh acres. Please refer to the source reference [8] http://www.cicero.uio.no/humsec/papers/Lenin%20Babu%20et%20al.pdf. On page 9, it clearly mentions that the irrigated area in TN was 28 lakh acres by 1974, while Karnataka was 6.8 lakhs. So, between 1974 and the nineties Karnataka has almost doubled its irrigated area, while (if the number mentioned in the section is true) TN has not added anything. This section needs scrubbing."

• I have sources which say that in 1974, TN's area was 24 lakh acres and Karnataka's was less than 5 million. The more articles you read, you will find that there is a slight discrepancy in the numbers. So you cant just take one source and write the whole article. Sarvagnya 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"4. In the section "Crisis of 95-96", I quote the following: "In 1995, the monsoons failed badly in Karnataka and Karnataka found itself hard pressed to fulfil the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of at least 30 TMC" So, does the author know that the monsoon failed in TN too and that is why they were demanding their fair share. Or, are these too many words to mention, lest the reader lose his sympathy on Karnataka ???..."

• This is funny. Karnataka was not 'hard pressed' to release water to TN because the rains failed in TN. It was hard pressed because the rains failed in Karnataka! And TN demanded water not because rains failed in TN, but because that was the interim order. TN had the right to demand those waters even if TN had record rainfalls. The failure of rainfalls in TN is irrelevant here and had nothing to do with Karnataka being 'hard pressed' to release waters. Sarvagnya 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"I can go on more, I'm going to stop here and see how these comments are being addressed...."

• You can go on and on and on, but you are not making a very good case for having the npov tag. Sarvagnya 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I quote from article

While all these discussions went on, Tamil Nadu’s irrigated lands had grown from a pre-Mettur command area of 14.4 lakh acres to 25.8 lakh acres[7] while Karnataka’s irrigated area stood at 6.8 lakh acres. Karnataka maintains that these figures demonstrate the lop-sided nature of the agreement.[7]

Did the irrigated land grew during discussions in the 70's? The answer is an obvious "no". This along with the "Sir. Griffin episode discussed above" shows the author's penchant for misleading people by quoting thing out of context. Praveen 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you want a citation for anything, use the {fact} or {citation needed} tags. You dont just mark the article as POV. huh. Sarvagnya 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are far too many POV sentances. doh. Praveen 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do not change the discussion. I am not asking for citation. The sentence is already cited out of context. The point is did the cited incident happen in 70's? no. not at all. Its a blatant misleading. Praveen 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think it is cited out of context? Stop presuming and imagining things. And yes, irrigated land in both states grew in the 70s also. I suggest you start googling and reading up on the subject before you start whining. And, for now, it is the only the {fact} tag that you need to use, if any. Stop using frivolous tags. Sarvagnya 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stop frivolous use of frivolous word. Sure the irrigation land increased, but it did not increase from 14 to 28 as your version says. You have mentioned "pre-mettur". Did the Mettur dam was constructed in 70's? You better stop pushing your POV and start reading from neutral sources before making some nonsensical comment. And there are far too many sentences to remove the NPOV tag. You have to reach a consensus here before removing that. Praveen 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The article very clearly says it grew from 14 from pre-Mettur days to 25. Nowhere have I claimed that it grew from 14 to 25 or 28 in the 70s. Only a convenient misinterpretation of the prose and splitting hairs can lead one to concluding so. So ultimately, what is your grouse? Wordings? Semantics? I still say that this article needs some copyedit. If you can help, help. If need be add a cleanup tag on top of the page. Right now, your use of inappropriate tags is not helping. Sarvagnya 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have put that sentence conveniently in the 70's section. You have written so as to sound like the whole thing happened in the 70's. And, I am helping by putting those tags in the article so that during the time that this article converted to a NPOV article, people reading this article see the tag and understand (Wikipedia 101). Praveen 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What nonsense. Neither does the sentence mean what you're claiming it does, and even if it did, I cant see how it can be POV or how it can be seen as making a case for Ktaka?! Even if your accusations are true, it is at best a 'factual inaccuracy', not POV or OR. The fact that Tamil Nadu's grew from 14/15 to 25/28 and karnataka's had grown to 6.8 is cited. Nowhere is it claimed that all this expansion happened in the 70s.

What is actually meant to be conveyed is that, by the time the 70s dawned and even as the discussions went on(discussions had started in the 50s, mind you) "irrigated area had grown... ". bah. Sarvagnya 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What a utter BS! Its not possible to convince people who in the first place made the POV sentence on purpose. What a waste of time! Read the my replies above and try to acknowledge the POV. If you can not please read again. Continue this cycle till you understand. Anyways, these discussions are for a neutral party to read and understand the POV pushingPraveen 15:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tamil Nadu’s irrigated lands had grown from a pre-Mettur command area of 14.4 lakh acres to 25.8 lakh acres[7] while Karnataka’s irrigated area stood at 6.8 lakh acres. Karnataka maintains that these figures demonstrate the lop-sided nature of the agreement. This sentence is out of place in the 70's section. Should be moved to early history section. Praveen 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The tag seems to have been added simply because a user thinks that there is one sentence that he thinks is OR. The sentence in question is -- "...In other words, it was made clear once again that British (and hence Madras) interests came first and every effort would be made to safegaurd the same..."

He has also tagged this specific sentence as OR. This itself is gratuitous and debatable. However there is no way that the entire section can be deemed as OR based on just this one sentence. In fact, the section is sourced. So I will be removing the OR tag from the section. Unless the user comes up with a better justification for tagging the entire section as OR, I will be removing it. I will however, pending further discussion, retain the {{OR}} tag that he's added to the sentence I've quoted above. Sarvagnya 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The section is sourced? Could you tell me on which page the "other words" sentence is written in the reference? Praveen 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A {{story}} tag has been added to the history section. I've read and re-read the section and I dont see how this tag is justified. Apart from the ^{[original research?]} tag that I've dealt in the previous section I dont see anything really wrong or debatable in this section. All facts have been sourced. I will remove this tag pending an explanation from the user justifying this tag. Sarvagnya 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The story tag is there because the starting paragraphs are written in un-encyclopedia way. You think sentences "the story goes long way" etc as normal? Praveen 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rewrote the history as per the given reference. Removed repeated wiki-links. Added important portions of 1892 agreement Praveen 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think its high time that the facts are disclosed in wiki. There southern deccan has only one major river Kaveri and has to be shared between states. Karnataka has to feed its population and also increase the land under irrigation.Its a pity that whole addition of all the dams in Karnataka represent a meagre percentage of dams in Tamil Nadu by just comparing their capacity. source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reservoirs_and_dams_in_India Now the density of population of TN is 478 while Karnataka is 290.The population is less in Karnataka as compared to Tamil Nadu.Now in India, democracy says that if u have more population then give more water to them not only for meeting drinking water needs but also for incresing land under cultivation! a new prescriptive right extension and a tribunal of jokers to defend it with made up statistics. Tamil Nadu had Madras Presidency in its territory more under British control which was instrumental in shifting Tamils into Bangalore for jobs.Even now the number of people working in Karnataka under central government jobs like Railways is greater than Kannadigas. Even the people working in dams of Karnataka are Tamils. Tamil Nadu has always controlled the political will at the centre.Soon sanction of classical tag to Tamil,Kaveri tribunal's one sided verdict which restricts the capacity of reservoirs and land under irrigation in Karnataka favours the opposite in Tamil Nadu, and top positions at the centre has been due to agreement between two regional political parties DMK and AIADMK who buy votebanks alternatively and bait the centre.

In the neighbouring Karnataka there are no regional parties on other hand and have to look for centre for everything and hence there is no power just because it doesnt have lobbying leaders. The land under irrigation in Kodagu,Mysore and Chamarajnagar is standstill without any improvement ,farmers commiting suicide at large scale in India. Its highly a mockery that a state which gives out water is held back to use its own resources.

On the other hand Tamil Nadu grows two crops per year,has increased land under irrigation manyfolds,has surplus surface water in addition to ground water,has many reservoirs,amount of storage surpasses Karnataka's storage by large.

What has this done to Karnataka- Most people are selling farmlands and are converted to urban areas. Agriculture is confined to a few areas all through the year. Urbanisation is rapidly increasing and industrialisation is becoming high thus giving a dull imbalance and more crowding from other parts of the country. There is a lot of agitations happening in Karantaka.Ambareesh has resigned from centre although belonging to ruling party. All cabinet members staged a protest in the capital,Karnataka rakshana vedike met PM Manmohan Singh for justice. Karnataka Bundh was called on Feb 23 which was complete and peaceful.

Kali-K 05:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Even in IT industry -Tamils are known for their groupisms.

One cannot gernalize a whole ethnic group. Your above statement is racist. Wiki Raja 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wiki, please do not reply to the troll. Praveen 04:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is a misinterpretation.I have great Tamil friends who never speak any other language but never hurt others also.I have only touched the politics of Tamils, nothing else.Its the worst thing to encounter in India.

Kali-K 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, one still cannot generalize a whole population. If it is a selected group of individuals from a particular group then say so, otherwise it would be taken as a stereotypical statement. Also, what can one expect in India? It is like taking China, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia, making it one country. Then expecting each group within that country to get along. Do you get what I am saying? It is nothing new, especially in India where different ethnic groups or different groups speaking different languages would pretty much engage in groupisms. Wiki Raja 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thats great .So you are for groupisms - that is very obvious .Thats what shows in Tamils.Thanks for being open.Thats what lacks in Tamil politics and statesmen. Its like guerilla warfare inside a single nation and the generalisation is not illogical it has facts to support.

• There are Tamils who don't speak anything except Tamil.They oppose centre but
• Still there are a lot in Central Government jobs and politicians at centre.
• Its well known that more than Kannadigas Tamils are working in central government jobs in Karnataka and it continues. Why - the system created for privileged.Bangalore has Kannada hater Tamil speakers -thanks to cantonment created for Madras presidency and Kannada ignore Hindi speakers - thanks to defence establishments all over city not giving an inch of road to the burgeoning traffic.
• They practice not only groupism but also racism - unable to speak or accept other languages ,they term them as dirty .Seen a lot of Tamils who hold this(Something common with Pakistani and the Taliban who have blindfold pride )
• Links with LTTE and Rajiv Gandhi assassination.
• Stronghold of Kaveri verdict from time of British.
• Opposing Hindi, Tamil gets classical status.Others just look on.why -just because of politics.(there are sufficient rock edicts of Kannada lying but no one cares till they become extinct)!
• One of the worst-Lalu removes other language boards from Trains except Tamil ,English,Hindi.
• IT industry - Northees and Tamils practice worst groupisms.I am sorry to say no other ethnic group does this - even though Kerala is known to have strong communist ideologies.

This is what boils from partition in a family to partition of a nation.I also advocate that we should follow a European model with a Central defence and control to states.But the factor of immorality from a neighbour is always to be suppressed.

On the other hand Karnataka has been weak in recent politics.It conceptualised a national pride which was never achievable with Tamils in south and Hindi in North- still it gasps .I dont know when the politics improve in Karnataka. But still there is something more moral than Tamils is the relieving factor.

Its perfect for locals to administer their ethnic group but when scope is out of the land something more should prevail - SENSE. If Karnataka takes a little harsh step and wants then not even a single drop of Kaveri will flow out and no one can question out with some Tamil blabbering.I would like to tell that whenever there is a competition Tamils use koota neethi much earlier than anyone else even if it is its own neighbour who has helped it or a enemy.Even if we leave politics in this case even the Tribunal which is supposed to be formed with intellectuals says about prescriptive rights as if Tamils have landed directly from heaven and Kannadigas are there to store and leave water. Also not to increase land under irrigation,2/3rds of Bangalore is out of Kaveri basin, not to clean any dams etc seems very iilogical even to a neutral expert.That makes a complete sweep of decisions.I don't know how this koota neethi will influence the ways adopted to tackle it and the decisions of neighbours , but I am sure if this continues TN will be responsible for peace instability in the peace loving South India which is the only mark of Indian culture which is depicted by the fact that a leader like Madegowda in Mandya is leading protests for 45 the day today still peacefully. I am hopeful sooner or later this koota neethi of TN will be tamed.Kali-K 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I'm missing something, but has there been a good justification for the neutrality tag? In reading the article, it actually seems to be a fairly unbiased overview of the history of the issue, with both sides being covered. If it's justified, please state what actially is non-neutral about this article, otherwise I'm going to remove it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The whole article reflects only one side of the dispute. Starting from the history of the dispute section, it references only the karnatka side, even ussage of names. Please refer to my earlier edits and the entries in discussion page. I am perfectly okay in removing the NPOV tage, if the article is renamed as "karnataka's stand point in kaveri water dispute", instead of having it "kaveri water dispute". The validity of tamilnadu's claim to water, and its alignment towards internation water agreements have been comfortably neglected. Kindly go through the complete discussion page, to understand how this entry lacks neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsnathan (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article suffers from heavy POV together with "data" without any citations. For e.g., the statistics table makes no references to reliable third party sources, especially for the rows "What They Demand" and "What Tamil Nadu Demands". Consider revising with replacing "They" with something more concrete, as well as giving references to support data. Gowdramesh (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is not {{NPOV}} candidate but {{cn}}. You were right on the wordings and I have tried to tweak it a bit, but I reckon it needs more revising. Feel free to change it if need be. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's a "Mr. ??" in there, which looks sloppy. It needs replacing with a particular name or copyediting to not make reference to which judge is being referred to. –Donal Fellows (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

These Discussions (brawls rather) are a clear exposition of what India really is. No wonder British ruled it for 200 years. In future some African or South American Country would rule India and these people would still be fighting and even approach it for settling the Kaveri River Water Dispute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satvistayou (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC) GermanJoe (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply