20 Sep 2023: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

E. Editorials

Category: POLITY

1. The Cauvery Water Management Authority should act

Syllabus: GS-2, Statutory, Regulatory and various Quasi-judicial Bodies.

Prelims: Cauvery Water Regulation Committee, Cauvery Water Management Authority, Cauvery’s Catchment Area, Inter-State River Water Disputes

Mains: Impact of Inter-State River Water Disputes on Federalism, Water Governance, Role of Cauvery Water Management Authority

Context: 

• The Cauvery River’s catchment areas are experiencing drought-like conditions due to the weak southwest monsoon, highlighting the need for a distress-sharing formula for the water resources. 
• This is also part of an ongoing dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the sharing of the Cauvery River water. 

What is the recent dispute? 

• The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) has ordered Karnataka to continue releasing 5,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu for another 15 days.
• The Karnataka Government stated that the state had released less water than usual in June, July, and August due to deficient rainfall, with a 41% deficit in the Cauvery river basin.
• Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court, demanding its fair share of water as specified in the 2018 order.
• The Karnataka Government is developing a “distress formula” to calculate the amount of water to be released to Tamil Nadu during years of deficient rainfall.
• Legal experts believe that the distress formula should be flexible and serve as a guide for accounting for rainfall deficiencies.

Origins of Distress-Sharing Formula

• The idea of a distress-sharing formula has been discussed since the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal issued an interim order in 1991.
• The final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 2007 and the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2018 did not provide a clear framework for distress sharing.
• The judicial bodies suggested proportionate sharing in times of distress, but the states have different opinions on what factors should be included in the formula.
• There is currently no agreement among the parties or the Authority regarding the specific elements of the proposed formula.
• Tamil Nadu considers current deficits in inflows to four Karnataka reservoirs compared to average flows over the past 30 years, as well as rainfall patterns in different parts of the Cauvery catchment area.
• Karnataka maintains that the overall distress situation cannot be calculated until the end of January and wants to take into account the outcome of the northeast monsoon (October-December) along with the southwest monsoon (June-September). 
• The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) recently submitted proposals to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of finding a mutually agreeable solution.

What is the scale of water distress in the region? 

• Karnataka has recorded a shortfall of 51.22% in inflows for four reservoirs between June 1 and August 27. 
• For example, the shortfall in the Biligundlu region was 62.4% compared to stipulated flows in a normal year.
• Karnataka, as an upper riparian state, is concerned about meeting its irrigation and drinking water needs for the next 8 months
• Karnataka informed the court of its difficulties in releasing water due to the severe drought situation in the Cauvery and Krishna basins. 

Role of CWMA? 

• The Centre established the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) in 2018. 
• CWMA is a permanent body and will regulate and control Cauvery water releases with the assistance of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.
• CWRC acts as a technical arm and will ensure the implementation of the Supreme Court Judgment of 2018 by periodically collecting data regarding levels, inflows, storages, and release of water.
• CWMA has not made significant progress in resolving the distress-sharing formula issue since its establishment in 2018.
• Political factors have played a role in preventing the resolution of the Cauvery dispute.

Way Forward? 

• The positions taken by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu may seem irreconcilable, but the CWMA or the Union government should still attempt to find a solution.
• Regardless of the outcome, states should pursue the idea of judicious use of water.
• Officials and technical experts within the CWMA should come up with a distress-sharing formula in a fair and objective way.
• The CWMA should start afresh and work towards making the proceedings of all meetings held thus far accessible to the public through a website to dispel misconceptions and build trust between the two states.
• Additionally, there is a need for transparent decision-making and a data-driven approach to find a solution that works for both parties.

Nut Graf: The Cauvery River’s catchment areas are experiencing drought-like conditions, highlighting the need for a distress-sharing formula for water resources. The Cauvery Water Management Authority should work towards a mutually beneficial formula while ensuring transparency in decision-making.

Category: SOCIAL JUSTICE

1. Facilitating degrees within a degree

Syllabus: GS-2, Issues Relating to Development and Management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health, Education, Human Resources.

Prelims: National Higher Education Qualification Framework,  University Grants Commission, Bologna Process and Dublin Descriptors

Mains: Initiatives related Higher Education in India, Challenges in implementing National Higher Education Qualification Framework

Context: 

The National Higher Education Qualification Framework (NHEQF) proposed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) has several limitations and challenges that need to be addressed. 

Challenges: 

1. Lack of a common framework: The University Grants Commission (UGC) has established the National Higher Education Qualification Framework (NHEQF) and the National Credit Framework, and requires higher educational institutions to implement the Academic Bank of Credits for accepting and transferring credits across courses and institutions, in addition to other regulations that impact higher education qualifications. These could have been integrated into a single and common NHEQF to minimize ambiguities in understanding qualifications across different contexts.
2. Lack of clarity: The NHEQF lacks clarity regarding the entry points and pathways for students to move between different levels of higher education programs.
3. Inadequate representation: The NHEQF does not include higher education qualifications awarded by certain disciplines such as agriculture, law, medicine, and pharmacy, which are regulated by separate bodies.
4. Over-emphasis on Bologna Process: The NHEQF draws heavily from the Bologna Process and the Dublin Descriptors, which were designed primarily for the European Higher Education Area. This may not be suitable for the diverse and complex higher education system in India.
5. Elitism: The provision for ‘degrees within a degree’ may lead to an elitist system where only those with high GPAs are eligible for PhD programs, thereby excluding others who may have equal potential but less privileged backgrounds.
6. Difficulty in implementation: Implementing the NHEQF may pose practical difficulties, such as equating postgraduate diplomas with four-year undergraduate programs, and determining the level of undergraduate degrees pursued after another undergraduate degree such as a B.Ed.
7. Ambiguity around learning outcomes: The NHEQF borrows from the Dublin Descriptors without considering the variations in learning outcomes for an Indian context. Learning outcomes can differ significantly across different fields of study and may not be measurable using the same criteria across all disciplines.
8. Ignore socio-economic factors: The NHEQF overlooks the impact of socio-economic factors on learning and access to higher education, which may further marginalize already disadvantaged groups.
9. Does not address regional disparities: The NHEQF does not take into account the vast differences in the quality of higher education across regions in India, which may widen the gap between urban and rural areas and perpetuate existing inequalities.

Conclusion 

The University Grants Commission must address the confusion from multiple guidelines, frameworks, and regulators related to higher education to ensure that qualifications are clear, consistent, and ease access to higher education in India.

Nut Graf: The proposed National Higher Education Qualification Framework (NHEQF) has several limitations and challenges, including lack of clarity and coherence, inadequate representation of all disciplines and ignorance of socio-economic factors. The University Grants Commission must address these challenges to ensure that the NHEQF is effective and inclusive.