ABSTRACT
As with most other inter-state river water disputes in India, the Cauvery water dispute has been seen entirely in hydrological terms. Even as the dispute has resulted in violent conflicts, with a prominent place for language identities, the search for a solution has been solely in terms of the sharing of the waters alone. The fact that these purely hydrological solutions have limited social acceptance is typically ignored, and any violence that results from such an absence of social acceptance is treated as a failure of governance. Using a Gandhian interpretation of Oberschall’s theory of conflict, this chapter demonstrates how the dispute is part of a larger social conflict, an effective response to which cannot then be restricted to its hydrological dimension alone. To manage the river, there is an urgent need for an agency that actively involves all stakeholders, without which it is possible that what looks reasonable in hydrological terms may be seen as representing gross injustices in larger social terms. When all sides in the conflict are prone to interpreting prescriptions for water sharing as being against their interests, the dispute can become more intractable than it needs to be.
