insignificant: varying between 0 and 13%. The question here is—are these contributions enough for the Centre to exercise influence over states to change their
ways towards the greater goals of long-term water security?
The data presented here may not give a definitive response to the question. The
Centre’s contributions, at as much as 20% of water budgets of smaller states, may
be important to affect some course-shift from the supply augmentation preferences
towards more efficient usage and sustainable practices promoted by the Centre.
However, for larger states, though the Centre’s contributions appear important
enough at up to 13%, whether they are adequate to make the states change their
course or water resources management strategies and preferences is an open
question and cannot be responded with complete confidence.
Yet, it may be not entirely about how these contributions matter when it comes
to states’ strategic choices for water resources management. Water is an emotive
subject and is closely connected with populations and constituencies. Water
resources development and the conflicts around it are deeply politicized. The
projects and strategies are driven by competitive politics, often leading to emergence and recurrence of interstate river water disputes. Water resources projects and
strategies are more likely determined by constituencies and electoral outcomes
(Chokkakula 2014). The Centre’s intended influence over states with fiscal
instruments has to negotiate this key element.
There can be other factors in this small versus large state’s responses: the
availability of land, climate suitability for agriculture, etc. While supplies may be
adequate for hilly states due to well-spread rainfall, the same may not be true for
inland areas like Deccan Plateau. Further, not all states are at the same level of
development for variety of reasons. The context and conditions of the states matter.
However, these aspects would need a different analytical frame and are beyond
scope of this paper.
3.4 How is the Centre Using its Limited Influence?
Centre’s financial contributions to states leave us with a rather equivocal and
ambiguous assessment about its ability to influence states. This assessment, however, relies on not so reliable premise that the Centre’s CSSs do indeed promote
progressive policies. The primary flagship water sector CSS launched in the recent
times is not under the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS), but the Ministry of Agriculture
and Farmers Welfare’s (MoAFW), the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana
(PMKSY).
7 This is an interesting extension to the earlier observation about how
other ministries play key roles in water resources management. The PMKSY is a
consolidated programme of several components and aspires to promote Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM) paradigm.
7
Some components monitored by the Central Water Commission, Ministry of Jal Shakti.
Whither India’s Federal Governance for Long-Term Water Security?
179
ways towards the greater goals of long-term water security?
The data presented here may not give a definitive response to the question. The
Centre’s contributions, at as much as 20% of water budgets of smaller states, may
be important to affect some course-shift from the supply augmentation preferences
towards more efficient usage and sustainable practices promoted by the Centre.
However, for larger states, though the Centre’s contributions appear important
enough at up to 13%, whether they are adequate to make the states change their
course or water resources management strategies and preferences is an open
question and cannot be responded with complete confidence.
Yet, it may be not entirely about how these contributions matter when it comes
to states’ strategic choices for water resources management. Water is an emotive
subject and is closely connected with populations and constituencies. Water
resources development and the conflicts around it are deeply politicized. The
projects and strategies are driven by competitive politics, often leading to emergence and recurrence of interstate river water disputes. Water resources projects and
strategies are more likely determined by constituencies and electoral outcomes
(Chokkakula 2014). The Centre’s intended influence over states with fiscal
instruments has to negotiate this key element.
There can be other factors in this small versus large state’s responses: the
availability of land, climate suitability for agriculture, etc. While supplies may be
adequate for hilly states due to well-spread rainfall, the same may not be true for
inland areas like Deccan Plateau. Further, not all states are at the same level of
development for variety of reasons. The context and conditions of the states matter.
However, these aspects would need a different analytical frame and are beyond
scope of this paper.
3.4 How is the Centre Using its Limited Influence?
Centre’s financial contributions to states leave us with a rather equivocal and
ambiguous assessment about its ability to influence states. This assessment, however, relies on not so reliable premise that the Centre’s CSSs do indeed promote
progressive policies. The primary flagship water sector CSS launched in the recent
times is not under the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS), but the Ministry of Agriculture
and Farmers Welfare’s (MoAFW), the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana
(PMKSY).
7 This is an interesting extension to the earlier observation about how
other ministries play key roles in water resources management. The PMKSY is a
consolidated programme of several components and aspires to promote Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM) paradigm.
7
Some components monitored by the Central Water Commission, Ministry of Jal Shakti.
Whither India’s Federal Governance for Long-Term Water Security?
179