Monsoon Mismatch
The Centre’s decision to send teams to Maharashtra and Karnataka to assess drought conditions is a reminder of an increasingly uncomfortable paradox. Two of India’s most industrialised and economically important states are facing acute water stress even as other parts of the country are coping with an excess of it. Maharashtra has declared drought in 265 of its 358 talukas, while Karnataka is also confronting a serious shortfall. The Centre has sensibly asked states to prepare a water budget before deciding their Rabi crop plans, including a shift towards less water-intensive crops in stressed areas.
Meanwhile, Uttar Pradesh has been dealing with the opposite problem. Nearly 60 people have lost their lives following exceptionally heavy rain throughout the state, with U.P. recording rainfall 775 percent above normal over a 60-hour period. More than 1,000 houses have been damaged and large areas inundated.
The situation exposes a fundamental weakness in India’s approach to water. Climate change undoubtedly contributes to more erratic weather. But blaming every drought, flood or urban water crisis on climate change is becoming an easy substitute for examining decisions made by governments and planners. Maharashtra and Karnataka have undergone extraordinary industrial and urban expansion in past years. Cities have spread far and wide with concrete replacing open land while wetlands and water bodies have been encroached upon. Green spaces in cities like Bengaluru and Pune have steadily come under pressure. More built-up land means less rainwater infiltration and greater dependence on reservoirs and groundwater. Development has brought prosperity, but its ecological bill cannot simply be passed to the monsoon.
India therefore needs to think of water as a national resource rather than a collection of state-level problems. River basins do not respect state boundaries. One region can be desperate for water while another is struggling to contain it. That makes the case for serious, evidence-based examination of river interlinking and inter-basin transfers difficult to ignore.
Such projects are neither a universal cure nor environmentally cost-free. They require rigorous hydrological studies, ecological safeguards and agreement among states. But rejecting the idea in advance is no more sensible than treating it as a miracle solution. A country with substantial spatial variation in rainfall needs to examine every credible means of moving, storing and conserving water.
The same urgency should govern urban planning. India cannot continue cutting green cover and paving natural drainage systems, then declare surprise when cities flood or reservoirs run dry. Watersheds, forests, wetlands, lakes and urban green spaces are not decorative amenities. They are part of the country’s water infrastructure.
The immediate task is drought relief and sensible crop planning. The larger one is that India must stop treating floods and droughts as disconnected disasters and start managing water as one national system.



Comments