The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Hi, Consider below sentences which can be termed POV or harsh commentery , try to put them in milder tone.
Mahawiki 03:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Karnataka | Tamil Nadu | Kerala | Pondichery | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1800 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1850 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1900 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1925 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1950 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1960 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1970 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1980 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1990 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 2000 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 2006 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsnathan ( talk • contribs)
Karnataka | Tamil Nadu | Kerala | Pondichery | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1800 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1850 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1900 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1925 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1950 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1960 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1970 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1980 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1990 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 2000 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 2006 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsnathan ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Wikiality123 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthorvey ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"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 quote from article
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Even in IT industry -Tamils are known for their groupisms.
Kali-K 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Hi, Consider below sentences which can be termed POV or harsh commentery , try to put them in milder tone.
Mahawiki 03:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Karnataka | Tamil Nadu | Kerala | Pondichery | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1800 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1850 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1900 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1925 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1950 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1960 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1970 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1980 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 1990 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 2000 | |||||
Basin Area of Agriculture benefitig from Kaveri waters (in km2) in 2006 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsnathan ( talk • contribs)
Karnataka | Tamil Nadu | Kerala | Pondichery | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1800 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1850 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1900 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1925 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1950 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1960 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1970 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1980 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 1990 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 2000 | |||||
Number of people dependent on Kaveri water for livelihood (in 1000s) in 2006 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsnathan ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Wikiality123 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthorvey ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"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 quote from article
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Even in IT industry -Tamils are known for their groupisms.
Kali-K 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)