Reference Text
Time Left10:00
The
Centre
cannot
continue
to
evade
its
legal
obligation
to
create
a
mechanism
to
implement
the
Supreme
Court's
final
verdict
in
the
Cauvery
dispute.
This
was
the
broad
message
conveyed
by
the
court
on
Monday
when
it
admonished
the
government
for
failing
to
frame
a
scheme
within
the
six-week
time
limit
given
earlier.
For
the
Centre,
it
was
embarrassing
to
be
asked
to
demonstrate
its
bona
fides
by
submitting
a
draft
scheme
for
the
court's
consideration
by
May
3.
The
court's
frustration
was
evident,
as
the
Bench
headed
by
the
Chief
Justice
of
India
was
surprised
and
disappointed
that
the
Centre
had
not
put
a
scheme
in
place
or
sought
an
early
clarification.
It
is
obvious
that
a
decree
on
the
sharing
of
water
requires
a
mechanism
to
give
effect
to
it.
It
is
an
evasion
of
responsibility
on
the
Centre's
part
to
set
off
a
round
of
litigation
just
to
determine
the
nature
of
such
a
mechanism.
At
the
same
time,
it
is
easy
to
understand
the
reluctance
of
the
Bharatiya
Janata
Party-led
government
at
the
Centre.
It
clearly
fears
that
framing
a
scheme
may
adversely
affect
its
prospects
in
Karnataka,
which
goes
to
the
polls
next
month.
In
the
conflict
between
duty
and
electoral
considerations,
the
BJP
has
chosen
the
latter.
It
is
a
matter
of
satisfaction
that
the
apex
court
has
indicated
that
it
will
pass
a
binding
order
soon.
The
Centre
should
redeem
itself
by
complying
with
the
latest
order.
Meanwhile,
the
ambiguity
over
whether
'scheme'
refers
to
or
differs
from
the
'Cauvery
Management
Board'
envisaged
in
the
Cauvery
Tribunal's
order
has
caused
great
disquiet
in
Tamil
Nadu.
This
raises
the
question
whether
the
court
should
have
allowed
an
element
of
ambiguity
in
its
judgment
by
referring
to
a
'scheme',
while
not
expressly
modifying
the
portion
of
the
Tribunal's
order
that
talks
of
a
'Cauvery
Management
Board'
and
a
'Cauvery
Water
Regulation
Committee'.
This
is
why
even
the
court's
appeal
for
peace
has
not
assuaged
sentiments
in
Tamil
Nadu,
where
tempers
are
soaring
in
some
quarters.
Unfortunately,
a
fringe
has
taken
centre
stage,
focussing
almost
their
entire
protest
on
the
Indian
Premier
League
tournament.
As
a
political
tactic,
threatening
a
hugely
popular
cricket
tournament
is
bound
to
attract
national
attention.
If
this
is
what
some
of
the
protestors
wanted,
then
they
have
succeeded
in
their
objective,
even
if
this
has
come
at
the
cost
of
some
disruption.
However,
targeting
the
IPL
is
irrational.
If
the
premise
is
that
fun
and
entertainment
are
inappropriate
in
this
time
of
crisis,
why
pick
on
one
tournament
alone?
Moreover,
IPL
matches
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
Cauvery
dispute;
more
importantly,
they
have
nothing
to
with
either
the
Centre
or