STUDY ON THE NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL RESPONSE ON THE INTERIM AND FINAL ORDERS OF THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTE TRIBUNAL OF INDIA Velayutham C.* and Aram I. Arul Department of Media Sciences, College of Engineering Guindy Campus Anna University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, (INDIA) Received May 05,2012 Accepted September 15,2012 INTRODUCTION India is a federal democracy, and because rivers cross state boundaries, constructing efficient and equitable mechanism for regulating river flows and allocating water has long been an important legal and constitutional issue. Numerous inter-state river water disputes have erupted since the independence of India, when the states were split on the linguistics basis. 1 The ill- distribution of river waters poses a threat to the Indian federalism because of politicisation of the issue, regional and fanatic sentiments among the disputants. The right to water is not explicitly stated in the Indian constitution. In the federal system the centre has not made much use of the potential for legislation and executive action given to it by the constitution in respect of inter-state rivers. *Author for correspondence ABSTRACT The Cauvery river water dispute is long pending, unresolved water-sharing conflict among the upper and lower riparian states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and the Union territory of Puducherry, India. The Cauvery water disputes tribunal gave an interim order in 1991 this outraged people in Karnataka which was followed by retaliation in the lower riparian states. The tribunal presented the final verdict on February 5 2007. The study aims to trace the newspaper editorial response and viewpoints on this tribunal orders. The newspaper editorial s responses show drastic differences in viewing the tribunal orders. During the Interim order of 1991, majority of the editorials concentrated more on blaming and accusing the verdict. The lead (first paragraph of the editorial) and the headlines (title of the editorial) were inciting, filled with only opinion, ignoring the facts completely and the editorials of the language newspapers (both Tamil and Kannada) merely justified their own states views, based on regional pride ignoring the views of the other side. During the interim order, there were many protests and violence in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. But the changes in newspaper approach were obvious during the final verdict of 2007. Newspaper editorials were non-partisan, written maturely without hurting the sentiments of the people of the state concerned. Importantly, alternative solutions for this dispute were suggested by the media through the editorials. The editorial response during the final verdict clearly states that the only solution for this dispute is non-judicial and non-political. Key Words : Cauvery river, Riparian, Tribunal order, Editorials, Lead, Headline 174 Allan and Nirvikar point out that current Indian water dispute settlement mechanism is ambiguous and opaque 2. The Inter States Water Disputes (ISWD) Act, 1956, was enacted by the Parliament to deal with inter-state disputes. If one or more riparian states of an inter-state is/are of the opinion that their interests are (or are likely to be) affected by actions or plans of other states, they can request the government of India to constitute a tribunal under the act. Iyer says the Inter State Water Dispute Tribunal can only give an award; it has no role to play in its implementation 3. Apart from the fact that once the tribunal has given its final award it will cease to exist and even when it is in existence it has no powers of enforcement. It has not been empowered to punish if there is any contempt of the tribunal verdict.
In fact, past experience of implementing the tribunal awards in the past has been far from happy one. The number of lingering inter- state water disputes are increasing by the day. The Ravi beas water dispute between Punjab and Haryana, the Krishna water dispute between Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, the Godavari water sharing dispute between Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa continue to linger in India. 4 Role of media in water dispute Conflict divides communities; the connecting potential of the infrastructure is an integral part of the media. Government officials rely on news reports as indirect indicators of public sentiment. 5 Understanding the ways in which news coverage can influence assessments of public opinion become important to the development of policies that accurately reflect citizen preferences. As noted by Hynds and Archibald, the highly subjective editorial pages provide readers with important benchmarks regarding salient issues against which readers can evaluate their own opinion. 6 It is based on that role that the current study focuses its analysis on the opinion section (Editorials) rather than on the objective designated news reports. Research on opinion journalism suggests that editorials and opinion articles may impact public opinion regarding important issues and potentially influence their decisions. 7 Tracing the history of the dispute River Cauvery is a peninsular river in southern India. Its origin is in the western ghats and it is a perennial river fed by rain waters. It is of about 800 km long flows through the upper riparian states of Karnataka and Kerala, to the lower riparian Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and discharges into the Bay of Bengal, in India. 8 After a long process of political negotiation ending in a failure, the Cauvery water disputes tribunal was set up in June 1990. The Cauvery Tribunal, in its interim award on June 25 1991, ordered that Karnataka should release 205 tmcft (thousand million cubic feet) of water to Tamil Nadu. It also stipulated a monthly quota for flow. This led to protest and violence in both the states. Then after 16 years of further investigation on this emotional dispute the tribunal gave the final order on February 5 2007 of 419 tmcft for Tamil Nadu, 175 270 tmcft for Karnataka, 50 tmcft for Kerala and 7 tmcft for Puduchery, which both the governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have contested through special leave petitions in the Supreme court. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The aim of the study is to analyze the editorial response of the English and regional language newspapers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka during the interim and final tribunal verdicts in the years 1991 and 2007 respectively. The other objectives are, to study the framing task of the editorials in terms of defining the century old unresolved dispute and what solution it provides through their editorials. Also, the study will look how the newspaper editorial portrays the identities of the stakeholders in the Cauvery river water dispute and how they characterize each other during the tribunal orders. METHODLOGY The sample was limited to the Post verdict editorials of the interim tribunal order on June 25, 1991 and the Final Verdict on February 5,2007 (Table 1). These editorial samples are considered as the editorial response of the newspapers on this century old dispute verdicts. The newspapers chosen for the analysis are The Hindu is an Indian english language daily newspaper published since 1878. With a circulation of 20.16 Lakhs (Indian Readership Survey 2011, The Hindu is the largest circulated daily English newspaper in South India, which has edition in all the riparian states. Dinamani one of the popular Tamil daily newspapers published since 1934 and owned by the The New Indian Express Group. Editorial page is the specialty of Dinamani. The circulation of Dinamani is 4.8 lakhs (IRS 2011). Prajavani is a leading and Second largest circulated Kannada language newspaper in Karnataka with a circulation of 34.03 lakhs (IRS 2011). The unit of analysis in this study is the entire editorial. Thus, this study s coding unit is the whole editorial including headline (title of the editorial). The editorial response will be studied through framing theory. In recent years, framing theory has taken over from agenda setting and cultivation
theory as the most commonly applied research approach in the field of communications science. 10 Scheufele and Tewksbury described framing as the selection of a restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion in the media agenda when a particular object is discussed. 11 Facts alone have no meaning of their own. It is only through being placed in some context through emphasis or focus as part of a frame that facts take on relevance. 12,13 Table 1 : The details of the editorials chosen for the study S/N Headline of the editorial - The Hindu Published date 1. The new twist on Cauvery July 27, 1991 2. Eminently implementable Feb 06, 2007 S/N Headlines of the editorials - Dinamani Published date 1. Cauvery Tribunal s Verdict June 27, 1991 2. Be satisfied with what you got Feb 6, 2007 S/N Headlines of the editorials - Prajavani Published date 1. Is Karnataka ready for legal war? July 30, 1991 2. Did the court want 17 years to give the unfavorable judgment? Feb 8, 2007 Gray s model of conflict framing forms the foundation for this study. 14 Two of the frames, identity and characterization, form the focus for this study. Identity frame refers to statements, statistics, quote or the phrases in the editorials that reflect or introduce the stakeholders who are party to conflict. Identity frame originates from the way the media aligns stakeholders with a particular position or stand while reacting to the tribunal orders. Five categories of identity frame will be used to examine the editorial repr esentation of the stakeholders while responding to the tribunal orders. Characterization frame is the one where each stakeholder in the conflict characterizes the other Stakeholders in Cauvery conflict 176 in terms of positive or negative. Since stakeholders in the water sharing conflict have the potential to be portrayed in many different identities, (e.g., adamant, strong, effective, cooperative, neutral, mediation, weak, ineffective, indecisive), the ones that surface as central to the dispute are key to understand the identification of stakeholder in this complex dispute. It is believed that the frames arise only from the media s descriptions of disputants in terms of the riparian identity and characterisation. Characterization frame also fits into these five stakeholders in Table 2, but can be differentiated as positive or negative, depending on the language use to describe other parties in the conflict. Table 2 : The characteristics of the identity frame Identity frame Karnataka Adamant Cooperative Weak Tamil Nadu Adamant Cooperative Weak Supreme court / Tribunal Partial Impartial Neutral Union government Strong Weak Indecisive Civil society initiatives Effective Ineffective Mediation
Further editorial framing in terms of the task it performs is operationalized as explained by Snow and Benford. The three core elements of social conflict framing are: diagnostic framing (problem identification), prognostic framing (articulation of the solution) and motivational framing (mobilization of collective action). 15-17 The editorial response is analyzed on the following task it performed in the coverage of Interim and Final tribunal orders. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The study traced the editorials of Dinamani (Tamil), Prajavani (Kannada) and The Hindu (English) newspapers. Editorial response after the interim order of the 1991 and final tribunal order of 2007 and analyzed (Table 3 and Table 4). It was found that the media reported the final order of the Cauvery water dispute tribunal with full responsibility, compared to the interim order where they are sensationalized. The study also found that both the regional and English newspaper s want to contribute by giving solution to resolve the dispute by any means. The editorial responses of The Hindu and Dinamani were solution oriented after the final tribunal order, which was not there during the interim order. However, Prajavani does not suggest any solution during both the orders. Dinamani in its editorial response point finger against Karnataka s adamancy as the key reason for the dispute during the interim order, but during the final order it softens its stand by identifying Tamil Nadu as a weak and cooperative riparian compared with others. Similarly, Prajavani on its part accused the Union Government as indecisive during the Interim order whereas in the final order it identifies Tribunal verdict as Partial. The Hindu accuses Karnataka for its adamant stand during the interim order by passing the ordinance in their assembly nullifying the interim order, but during the final order it accuses both the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu being adamant and identifies tribunal as impartial and neutral. Editorials of The Hindu motivate civil society initiated solution approach while Dinamani suggest a non-political solution, and Prajavani endor sed a solution only within judicial framework. 177 During the interim order, all the three newspapers believed and echoed that the judicial approach can alone solve the dispute, whereas during the final order the preference of a judiciary initiated solution was less endorsed by all newspapers. Although Prajavani did not try to suggest any solution which could benefit both the states, Dinamani and The Hindu gave alternative solutions which benefit both the states. The Hindu editorials highlighted Karnataka, characterizing the tribunal and the supreme court negatively during the interim order giving importance to the regional sentiment and pride, but during the final order the characterization of the Tribunal and civil society initiatives turn to be positive. Dinamani consistently portrayed Tamil Nadu, characterizing Karnataka negatively during both the orders. Prajavani in their editorials highlights Karnataka, characterizing Tamil Nadu negatively during the Interim order and during final order it characterizes Tribunal negatively. CONCLUSION The overall response of the newspaper editorials during the interim order and the final order shows a drastic change in approaching the dispute. During the interim order of the Cauvery water dispute tribunal in 1991, the editorial response concentrated more on blaming and accusing the verdict. The leads and headlines of these editorials were proactive and inciting, with just filled with opinions, ignoring the facts completely and the editorials of the regional newspapers merely justified their own states views based on regional pride ignoring the other side. Editorials even accused dispute tribunal s technical incompetency and adamancy of the riparian were the key reasons for fuelling the conflict. Hence, during the interim order, there were many protests and violence in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. But the changes in newspaper approaches were too obvious during the final verdict of 2007. Newspaper editorial s responses were written maturely without hurting the sentiments of the people of both the states. Importantly the media highlighted alternative solutions through their editorials, which showed their involvement in finding an amicable solution to this century old
Table 3: Comparative analysis of the editorial response during the Cauvery tribunal interim order, India (1991) Newspaper Identity framing Characterization Framing task name framing Diagnostic / Prognostic / Motivational framing The Hindu Editorial identifies Karnataka negatively Diagnostic Blames the Karnataka for complicating the dispute by (English) Karnataka as adamant characterizes supreme passing an ordinance against the interim tribunal order. July 27, 1991 upstream riparian. court and tribunal orders. Prognostic Hypothetically suggest only a good monsoon every year could solve this dispute amicably. Motivational Motivates Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to give up their vengeance over each other to solve this dispute amicably. Dinamani Identifies tribunal orders as Tamil Nadu characterize Diagnostic Editorial raises and highlights anomalies and defects in (Tamil) impartial and also frames Karnataka as negative tribunal order indirectly telling people of Tamil Nadu that they will June 27, 1991 Karnataka as adamant and because of their idea of not get same water which they use to get in 1972. Tamil Nadu as weak. appealing to the Supreme court over the interim order. Prognostic Editorial advises Karnataka to accept the interim order and not to appeal against it in Supreme Court. Motivational Motivates Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to have mutual understanding Prajavani The editorial identifies both Karnataka negatively Diagnostic Defining the interim order as the start of the legal war (Kannada) the riparian states as characterizes the Tamil July 30, 1991 adamant. Further the Nadu and the Union Prognostic Hypothetically suggests only a good monsoon every editorial identifies Union Government. year could solve this dispute amicably. Government as indecisive and frames any legal solution Motivational Motivates Karnatakaand Tamil Nadu to give up their will always be partial. vengeance over each other to solve this dispute amicably. 178
Table 4 : Comparative analysis of the editorial response during the Cauvery tribunal final order (2007) Newspaper Identity framing Characterization Framing task name framing Diagnostic / Prognostic / Motivational Framing The Hindu (English) Feb. 6, 2007 Still Identifies both the riparian as adamant hence quotes they might explore further legal avenues. Even though it commends the final award but it Identifies that legal solution through tribunal is Impartial still quoting many flaws in the award. Positive characterization of the tribunal and civil society initiative for finding a solution to this dispute. Diagnostic blames all the riparian states that they need more quantity in a deficit basin is the crux of the problem. Prognostic Commends the final verdict as just, equitable and implementable. Motivational Motivates both the riparian states by saying the award is a happy ending and unanimous and gives credit for Cauvery Family for its efforts in motivating the farmers. Dinamani (Tamil) Feb. 6, 2007 Editorial Identifies Tamil Nadu as cooperative and weak downstream state. Characterize Karnataka as well as tribunal negative, because of that Tamil Nadu is a loser. Diagnostic Editorial raises dissatisfaction among Tamil Nadu farmers order. Prognostic Editorial clarifies farmers on the quantity allocation clearly in the verdict. Motivational Motivates Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to have mutual understanding quoting former Union minister Rangarajan Kumaramangalam idea of building a power generation unit near Hokkenekal bordering both the states and points out to share power generated through Cauvery water. Prajavani (Kannada) Feb. 8, 2007 Editorial Identifies Tribunal as Partial. Karnataka Characterize the tribunal as negative. Diagnostic Karnataka feels the judgment is unfair. Prognostic Suggest only a legal solution will end this dispute. Motivational No motivation. 179
dispute. And the editorial stand during the final verdict was that the only solution for this dispute could be non-judicial and non-political. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT C.Velayutham is thankful to his Doctoral Research Joint Supervisor Dr. K.Thanasekaran, Professor, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Anna University, Chennai, India for his valuable inputs in this article. REFERENCES 1. Iyer R.R., Indian Federalism and Water Resources, Water Reso. Develop., 10(2), 191-202, (1994). 2. Richards, Alan, Singh and Nirvikar., Inter State Water Dispute in India: Institutions and Policies- Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz (2001). 3. Iyer R.R., Water: Perspectives, issues, concerns, Delhi: Sage Publi. (2003) 4. Himanshu T., South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, Why the Cauvery award is flawed rediff.com, ( 2007) 5. Junne G. and Verkoren W., The challenges of Post conflict Development in Junne G and Verkoren W (eds), Post conflict Development: Meeting new Challenges, 1-18, Lynne Rienner Publishers, London (2005) 6. Hynds E. and Archibald E., Improving Editorial Pages Can Help Papers, Com munities, Newspaper Res. J. 17(1-2) 35-48, (1996). 7. Druckman J. and Parkin M., The Impact of Media Bias: How Editorial Slant Affects Vot ers. J. Politics 67(4 ), 1030 49, (2005). 8. Richards A. and Singh N. Inter-state water disputes in India: Institutions and policies, Int. J. Wat. Resou. Develop., 18(4) 611-25 (2002). 9. http://www.bestmediainfo.com/2012/01/ irs-q3-2011, NRS, (2011). 10. Bryant J., and Miron D., Theory and research in mass communication. J. Commu., 54(4), 662 704, (2004). 11. Scheufele D. A. and Tewksbury D., Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. J. Commu., 57(1), 9 20, (2007). 12. Gamson W.A. and Modigliani A., Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. Am. J. Sociol. 95(1),1-37 (1989) 13. Singh A. and Gosain A.K., Conflict resolution in Indian transboundary water courses, J. Environ. Res. Develop., 4(1), 263-275, (2009). 14. Gray B., Framing and Reframing of Intractable Environmental Disputes, in Lewicki R., Bies R., and Sheppard B., (eds.), Res. Negoti. Organi., 6(1), 163-188, (1997) 15. Snow D.A. and Bendford R. D., Idelology, Frame resonance and participation mobilization, Int. soc. move. res., 1(1), 197, (1988). 16. Rajkumar Samuel A. and Nagan S., Study on Tiruppur CETPs discharge and their impoct on Noyyal river and orathupalayam dam, Tamil Nadu, India. 5(3), 558-565, (2011). 17. Benerjee D., Environmental Jurisprudence in India with reference to initiatives of supreme Court for enviro. social justice. J. Environ. Res. Develop. 3(4), 992-997, (2009). Energy Efficiency Importance in Saving the Environment 180