2007-02-06 17:11:49 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
WE WANT SOLUTIONS AMONG THE STATES IN A SATISFY MANNER.
2007-02-08 23:12:09 · answer #1 · answered by RAMAN IOBIAN 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Cauvery Tribunel's verdict goes against the interests of Karnataka to some extent. It has taken nearly 17 years to give such a result. The Tribunel should have taken the present conditions instead of going through the past requirements. We all should understand that no tribunal or court can decide on sharing of natural resourses. It is not a fixed commodity based on demand and supply. Water as a commodity is always based on the natures help, what ever may be the demand. The priority of the state of Origin should be accepted and the balance should be distributed to others.
2007-02-07 01:15:51 · answer #2 · answered by Brahmanyan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although it took nearly 17 years for giving the judgement, it has been done in a well thought out manner. Information has been updated by the tribunal periodically and the experts have done enormous amount of calculation to arrive at a viable figure, keeping in view the earlier agreements. The Judge is from the north and, therefore, he has no axe to grind. Though the figure in favour of Tamil Nadu appears to be on the higher side, the real position would be much lower as the release of water on a monthly basis, depending upon, availability would be much lower.
The interesting point would be that after independence both India and Pakistan reached a balanced settlement on the sharing of Indus River Water. If two different countries, who have always been at loggerheads, could reach a settlement, why not the states within India come to a mutual settlement.
2007-02-07 02:19:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A cheap political stunt made by TN Govt and the other members of the UPA .In order to run the govt,once again the unworthy congress party has played a dirty game by favouring its ally.It was a terrible judgement and the farmers in our state are betrayed.TN Govt for how much deal did you finalise the tribunal in favouring the cauvery water result?
2007-02-07 10:47:26 · answer #4 · answered by sairam 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When two parties go to court, then they are supposed to accept and honour the verdict. But it is typical of the politicians to make hue and cry when the verdict goes against them.What is the point to go to courts when you do not want to accept the judgement?
2007-02-07 01:25:28 · answer #5 · answered by Rahul 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Result is well deliberated and researched by professionals in the field..rest is all politically motivated just to garner votebanks
2007-02-07 01:14:58 · answer #6 · answered by big b 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
16 years is a pretty long time...in any case i think it is quite neutral and politicians are just making a fuss out of the situation
2007-02-07 01:16:26 · answer #7 · answered by vishweshpatel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IT IS SHAMEFUL TO CALL OUR SELF FOLLOWING SECULARISM AND DEMOCRACY WHEN WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED TO DISHONOUR CAUVERY TRIBUNAL VERDICT AFTER CONTESTING FOR 16 YEARS WITH FRIGALE FACTS AND KNOW THE RESULT
2007-02-07 22:13:17 · answer #8 · answered by padminiramesh@yahoo.com 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if one person is moving around the cyber world with so many names, then sure i am starting to believe that there is only one God.
2007-02-07 01:27:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋