This is an archive of past discussions about Kaveri. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Kareri is also spelt Kavery, as can be seen from numerous google hits. Mentioning the alternate spellings helps users who are using keyword searches. It also helps Wiki editors in understanding redirect pages. For these reasons, I am restoring the alternate spelling. --BostonMA13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The existing article is to Krishna Raja Sagara, not to Krishnaraja Sagara. Changing the links to Krishnaraja Sagara broke them. An alternative solution would be to change the links and change the article to which they point. However, in this case, I think that would be incorrect. The dam is commonly known as the KRS dam, implying a three word name. For these reasons, I am restoring the links to Krishna Raja Sagara. --BostonMA14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Dam Induced Drought(photograph)
There is a photo which accompanies "Significance of Kaveri in TN". It is captioned, "Kaveri river bed at Tiruchirapalli, after years of dam-induced drought"
Can someone explain what that caption means. Which dam induced what drought? The landscape looks quite green for one that has suffered 'years of drought'. What is that photograph supposed to convey and how does it even fit into this article. Or I shall remove the photograph.Sarvagnya22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2003 monsoon was unusually dry and there was drought in TN. Blame was placed by some on the KSR dam. However, there was very little water behind the dam. Ground was exposed which was usually under 5 - 10 meters (my guess) of water. --BostonMA20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
"Blame was placed by 'some' on KRS(not KSR) dam".. So?? So what?? Tamil Nadu irrigates three times more land using Kaveri than Karnataka and seldom has tanjavur run dry when KRS was full. So stop throwing in subtle hints for your POV. Sarvagnya04:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I support that the photograph be removed. It is not related to any of the content in the article and the caption is uniformative Shushruth07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Those opposing to pic can build a consensus.There is no problem inculding that pic in this article.mahawiki
The question of why that pic needs to be included, hasnt been answered yet. Neither has it been answered on the talk page nor does the article speak even a word in the context of having the picture there. BostonMA has said something about year 2003 and 'some' people blaming a dam that doesnt even exist. As for Mahawiki, even though he has nothing to say here, has just decided to vote for keeping the pic. Unfortunately, WP is not a democracy in the strictest sense of the word. Or else, we would have a situation where whichever POV got more votes would make it to the article. Fortunately WP is about NPOV. Whoever wants to have the pic there, ought to spell out the reasons for having it there or the article should make the reason clear. So stop reverting. Sarvagnya07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it is not for me to explain why it should NOT be there. It is for whoever who wrote the article to explain why it is there. Even though BostonMA has given some weak explanation based on hearsay, the article does not explain anything. Even if we were to accept BostonMA's explanation, how does it become 'years of dam-induced drought'??!! just one year 2003 doesnt become 'years of ...' as the caption says. also, dont forget that neither BostonMA or any other editor has bothered to explain it on the talk page or on the article page.
Also as for why the onus is not upon me to explain why it should not be there, let me give u an example(you can call it outrageous if you want). I will put a photograph of Kittur Rani Chennamma on Shivaji's page without any explanations. Then I will say you have to explain to me why it should be removed!! How would that look?? Sarvagnya
If u r assertive of 'removing this pic' u need to explain.Change the caption if u feel so.The inclusion of that pic might explain the controversy of Kaveri waters in a profound way.TN has problems with K'taka about release of Kaveri waters,so perhaps the editor who included wanted to emphasize that 'thew controversy leaded to draught'(may be of a year or so)/
For starters, Kittur Rani Chennamma is from Belagavi not Bangalore. Just shows how little you know about Belagavi though you keep fighting to edit it. She is probably the first woman freedom fighter of India. She fought the British before Jhansi Rani was probably even born. You need to read up on history first before talking/arguing about it.
And whatever explanations the creator of the article may have for the inclusion of the pic, he has to explain it in the talk page atleast if not the article page. Why are you talking for him? Are you his spokesman? If you have anything to say in support of having the pic there, say it. Stop speculation for or on someone else's behalf. Sarvagnya08:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Whats Belgavi?Anyways if u refer to Belgaon,I think we are more concerned of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj than anybody else.And I would request u to stop making comments like 'Kannada is older than Marathi', 'our Amma fought Britishers first than ur Jhansi Rani Laxmibai' etc. because whole nation knows how great Jhansi queen Laxmibai was,whereas very few even know about Kittur queen.This is not to show disrespect to her but just wanna say that Belgaonkars are indifferent to 'ur' freedom fighters and actors which u promote like brand-ambassadors of Karnataka.If that queen has any statue in Belgaon,then plz add it there but whats the need of mention of Bangalore's statue?
Thanks for ur advice,but I think Tamil Nadu has a POV reagarding this and we must include that also.Rather than singing 'see how our Karnataka is suffering bcoz of TN..' lets have a NPOV here.The pic shows the draught situation which happened because of controversy.You are free to add any Karnataka pics.mahawiki10:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If Tamil Nadu has a POV about the matter(not even clear about which matter u r talking), then some editor should first write what that POV is. I dont see any explanation. Do you? Sarvagnya17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
We should use reputable sources. If a reputable source says that low water levels in Tamil Nadu were due to damming, then it should be reported. If it is just opinion, then that is original research, and even if true, should not be voiced as fact in Wikipedia. --BostonMA17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont see any sources being mentioned here much less a 'reputable' source. And to say that in a drought year when the KRS dam itself is dry, that places downstream are dry because of the dam upstream is a classic example of POV if there ever was one. Sarvagnya19:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mahawiki, I mean no offense to anyone, but I believe the caption on the picture is at best questionable. Even if there are reputable sources that say that the water shortage was caused by damming, it is an open question of whether that particular river-bed is dry as a result of damming, or even if that riverbed is representative of the Kaveri in that area. That could have been a spot that only fills when the water is very high anyway. Just my thoughts. --BostonMA16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Karikalan
Irrigation works have been constructed in the delta for over 2000 years. The most ancient surviving irrigation work is the Grand Anicut or Kallanai, a massive dam of unhewn stone, 328 meters (1080 feet) long and 20 meters (60 feet) wide, across the stream of the Kaveri proper. It is attributed to the Chola king Karikalan, and is supposed to date back to the 2nd century. The dam is still in excellent repair, and supplied a model to later engineers.
Karikalan was no real king. He exists merely in some tamil poetry and in the vivid imaginations of some peope. It is unencyclopaedic to attribute a real dam to an imaginary king or soldier or servant or whatever. Also can you cite some sources(other than some fuzzy allusions in some poetry) to say that the 'dam' was built in 2nd century. Just curious, is there any dam anywhere in the world which has stood for nearly 2000 years? Or is this one built by an imaginary guy the only exception? -Sarvagnya.
Although the consensus amongst historians (such as Prof. K.A.N. Sastri) is that Karikala Chola was a real king, supported by many literary and epigraphic (albeit from later Cholas), there is no evidence for his alleged building the Grand Anicut. It is indeed unsustainable to claim so. - Parthi22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
If Karikala was a real king supported by epigraphic evidence why does Karikala Chola say,
"The story of Karikala is mixed with legend and anecdotal information gleaned from Sangam Literature. Karikala has left us no authentic records of his reign. The only sources available to us are the numerous mentions in Sangam poetry. The period covered by the extant literature of the Sangam is unfortunately not easy to determine with any measure of certainty."
Clearly, atleast from that article, there is no epigraphic evidence of he being a real king. If literary evidence is enough to establish historicity, everyone from the Ramayana and Mahabharata would have to be considered real people. Sarvagnya07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What do u mean?Krishna or Rama are not real people?Than how come Kannadi kavi pampa or Rashtrakutas are real people according to u?Plz dont hurt others sentiments.All Kannadi mythological texts and people are real and others are not?This is what counts to Kannadi vandalism.mahawiki07:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Krishna and Rama are not real people. Atleast on WP, they cannot be considered real people. As for Pampa and Rashtrakutas etc., there is epigraphic and other evidence to establish their historicity. But for Rama, Krishna and Karikala(going by the Karikala article on WP), the only reference to them is in literature. References in some literary work alone imo cannot be used to establish historicity. Correct me if I am wrong. If Rama and Krishna were real people, we would have to include them in the history of Indian Kings(Rama ruled Ayodhya and Krishna ruled Dwaraka) and Indian history in general. But we do not. Hope this clears things for you. Sarvagnya08:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Speculations about Krishna and Rama not being real are insulting to our religion. I would advise Sarvagnya to check out the articles on WP - Rama and Krishna. As for Pamapa and Rashtrakuta, even if their is evidence etc. it doesn't mean that they were Rashtrakutas or Pamapa. It may be myth. Please look before you leap. --Arya Rajya Maharashtra09:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If you think I have insulted you or your religion, I encourage and exhort you to go and file your complaint with any authority on Wikipedia(even Jimbo Wales if you want) or even outside Wikipedia. Sarvagnya17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Forget about these speculations!If Rama or Krishna were Kannadis,Sarvagnya would had considered as real person.:))No offence meant!!mahawiki10:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
For "starters", the very frst sentence of Rama's article is ...was a king of ancient India whose grand story is portrayed in the epic Ramayana, one of the two great epics (mahakavya) of India...
Its clear that you know neither about history nor mythology nor the distinction between the two. Rama and Krishna are mythological characters. Kittur Chennamma, Pampa and Rashtrakutas are historical entities. Historians have proved their existence in history. Rama and Krishna's lives havent been proved unless you and your pals have come up with your own ground breaking evidences. Sarvagnya17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear friend,
Rama and Krishna are real but I doubt are u for real?
Do u know Dwarka, Mathura, Ayodhya, Dandakaranya?All these places are real.Do know that recently NASA decipehered the 'Palk Strait' and Setu described in 'Ramayana'.
Are all non-Kannadi figures non-existent!!!mahawiki17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. If Rama and Krishna are real, go and add them in the list of Indian monarchs so that they show up on this list
Segregation of facts and religious/mythological connotations
I feel that this article needs a major cleanup. It is anything but encyclopedic in nature. I believe we need to segregate the religious references into a separate section. Can I shift the mythological origins into a subheading under religious references? Shushruth07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me the need for having the tamil transliteration here. First of all, let me point out that I wasnt the one to add the transliterations. Somebody had already done it. I looked at articles of few other rivers and didnt find any transliterations. But since it was included here, I thought it would be fair to only retain the Kannada transliteration as the Kaveri originates in Karnataka. Sarvagnya07:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the Kaveri river is a controversial issue among two states,imho, the Tamil translation should also be included.mahawiki10:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop mixing issues. The dispute has nothing to do with this article. And the dispute does not even concern whether Kaveri takes birth in Karnataka or in Tamil Nadu. Everybody agrees that Kaveri takes birth in Talakavery in Kodagu district of Karnataka. Stop trying to mislead people not familiar with the issue. Sarvagnya16:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me not go into the touchy issue of the Cauvery dispute. That's immaterial to this discussion. But, a significant length of Cauvery runs through Tamil Nadu. The whole of it is the river, isn't it? Then it would be correct to include Tamil transliteration as well, IMO. See Indus River for example. -- Sundar\talk \contribs06:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
article needs sourcing
Per Wikipedia policy WP:V, this article is to be encyclopedic and facts must be verified by citations to reliable, unbiased third-party sources. One means of dealing with this problem is to remove all material in the article that is not referenced. That would help solve any claims of NPOV and is what Wikipedia requires anyhow. Mattisse(talk)12:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Mattisse. I am not sure that every statement needs an inline source, or it should be deleted. Do we need to have an inline reference to a third party source to verify that Paris is in France? The course of the river is easily seen from maps. Sould we place a reference to a map on each line describing the course? Would it be original research to describe the areas through with the river passes? Please clarify your position. Sincerely --BostonMA12:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mattisse that the article needs sourcing. I also agree with Boston MA that most of it is 'common knowledge' but some things like Karikalan, the claims about the antiquity of the dam etc., needs referencing. Sarvagnya17:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that common sense should prevail. Of course you don't have to source obvious things, India is a country in the world, etc. An article that is often referred to as a model for citations is Fidel Castro because the topic is controversial. The only way any material can last in that article is if it is sourced. Wikipedia's currrent policy is that any editor can remove unsourced material at will, so sourcing it is a way of protecting the information you put in. WP:V is Wikipedia's one absolute policy that has to be followed. Mattisse(talk)19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any problem with the line below. I am discussing this before adding this in the article. Please tell YES or NO and reasons for that. No personal attacks please.
Kaveri water sharing has been a major issue of contention between the two states. A central government agency has been formed to look into this issue. As per the Tribunal's interim report, Tamil Nadu should be given 210205 TMC. But the state has not got that amount in the past years, inspite of the fact that the other state has been utilising more than twice the amount [1]
NO.Include the names of states "which has been utilising more than twice the amount".There's no need of 'asking' as u have citation ready.mahawiki18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No. Dont add those lines. First of all 210 is factually incorrect. It should be 205 TMC. Also saying that TN has not got 205 TMC in tha past years is blatantly false. TN has infact got more than the stipulated 205 tmc every year since the interim order till now, except in the drought years of 95-96, 98, 2002 when the shortfall was merely in the range of 10-20%.
Also about your citation, where does it mention in your citation that other states(I presume you mean Karnataka) used/uses more than twice the amount that TN uses?? Sarvagnya19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Here dear, here... http://waterresources.kar.nic.in/irri_in_kar.htm.. It say Karnataka (alone) uses 425. Stipulated for Tamil Nadu is 210. SO I can add that now. The reference is the Government Website. It is authenticated
This webpage gives total potential, not the amount being used. Total available is 400+, and if you leave 205 to TN, usage is much below 200. So in effect Karnataka has been restrained to use less than 50% of the water. My answer is NO Leotolstoy13:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
This is what I meant by ridiculous interpretation of facts. Some people either dont know the difference between 'potential' and 'usage' or dont want to understand it. Ignorance probably suits their convenience.
Just see how he contradicts himself. In one place he says Karnataka is using 332 TMC or something. In other place he says Karnataka is using more than twice what TN is getting(ie more than twice 205 TMC). If I learnt my Math well, 205x2=410. and 332<<410!! Anyway, some people seem to be experts in everything, history, maths and moreover they have support from some experts who are experts in every conceivable field!! Sarvagnya17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you give citations for the fact that Tamil Nadu has got more than 205 TMC.
From the same site - Tamil Nadu didn't receive enough water in the crucial months of June, July, and August. Please note that the interim order specifies a criteria for uniform flow and not opening the fllod gates during rains (leading to wastage of water as it flows into the sea) and not giving anything at all during the needy times. Also this is not a site for debate. There is no use in arguing over here. Let us close the debate here. If another article comes up. We can add facts there and till then let Cauvery run in peace (at least let it run and not crawl) Doctor BrunoTalk01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Aahh!! You could write a book about how to quote selectively to suit your convenience! Let me quote the complete sentence. This is what the article says!!
Some may say Tamil Nadu didn't receive enough water in the crucial months of June, July, and August. However the Cauvery tribunal didn't take this argument very seriously when it gave a clarification of its order in December 1995.
To anybody who can understand english, it is clear that - even though some may say that TN didnt get water in the crucial months, the competent authority ie., the tribunal, did not agree with that opinion!! so who are you trying to kid?! Sarvagnya01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The reference to the distress months should be stated in the article for the neutrality, especially because its been stated in the reference you have made yourself. Wikipedia is not owned by Karnataka nor Tamil Nadu. It should be unbiased giving the argments of both sides. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiality123 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
Also refrain from going into the details of the dispute in this article. I have created a seperate article for the dispute and have given all the details there. However that article is not yet complete and I will try to complete it as soon as possible. Of course this article needs to mention that there is a dispute and it has already been mentioned. Sarvagnya19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well there's a wonderful article created by a user about Kaveri dispute.But sadly that article talks about 'how a state is been opressed by another' and doent have NPOV.
Regardless of that few details about Kaveri dispute should find place here.Its safe to ignore the tall claims made by users here without any citations.
Well done,Doctor!
mahawiki05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
References added
I have addeed adequately cited points in the main article. The 210 TMC was a mistake. It is just 205. But it is truth that Karnataka has not given that over the years and also hat It has used more than twice the amount for itself in contrary to the Supreme Court and other authorities.
If you have any points, please add those
If you are against a fact/sentence/phrase, please discuss here and let us try for an consensus
Cite as much as u can.Because few users are not contented by 1-2 ciations.To be on safer side cite all of them.What r ur views on the pic which was questioned by few of editors here?(of draught condition in TN?)mahawiki05:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only is the content unfit for an encyclopaedia, but the language also. The less said about the content the better. It is full of ridiculously interpreted facts and moreover keeps harping about the happenings of 2002. Tries to pass off a citation from 98 or 02 for the 91 happenings. Poor. Since I am writing a whole article about the dispute I am not sure I should be wasting my time here fighting misrepresentation of facts. Sarvagnya16:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thats good Sarvagnya. Try to find more information about how the conflict started. Especially the reaty between mysore kingdom and madras state (British). Leotolstoy16:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Leo, I have all the information and have almost finished writing the article. I need to still add information from 2002-2006 and then I will add the references and citations. Sarvagnya17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop fighting over here
I would like all of us to stop arguing over the merits and demerits of one state getting more (or not) at this talk page. There are other sites. Just give the links and write the story. Try to collect date and Please mention
How much should have be given as per Interim Order - 205 TMC
When it should be given (how much every week, every month etc) If you have articles to show that it should be uniform, please cite that. If you have citations for the other cite, please tell that also
How was it given. If you have articles to show that it was given as per judgement, please cite those facts. if you have citations that it was not given, please cite those
And where have I mentioned "Whether it should be given more... given less" etc?? It is you who has been talking without facts and figures and saying things like karnataka is using twice the amount of water tamilnadu is using blah blah.
Let us take your own figures, In 72, TN=489, K=177, so total =666. Out of 666, now according to your own citation K=312. therefore, it stands to reason that TN=666-312=354. So, K=312, TN=354. now dont tell me that K is giving TN only 205 so how TN can be using 354?!!... K is giving TN 205(infact more than 205 most of the times as my link shows)from the SW monsoon it gets, remaining TN is getting from the S-W and N-E monsoon that falls over TN. Sarvagnya02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Basically, I'll tell you something. You need to do your research and homework before you argue about something. Let this article live in peace and let me finish the article I am writing about the dispute. Sarvagnya02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Let this article be neutral
Plz keep this article neutral.A user here tries to push his state's POV everywhere.Since he is being questioned here he has now trying to vandalise Marathi articles.
I would request all to keep a close watch on this article.
mahawiki10:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Dont remove the pic,discuss it here before u touch it.Why remove Hindi wikitag?Why remove cited statemenrs of Boston?(although I suggest to write them in neutral POV)?Plz stop adding biased stataments against TN and adverbss like 'merely' 'scrupulously' as the other party could also follow the suit.
mahawiki04:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
I see no problem with having two pictures, one showing a powerful river capable of supplying the force needed to run a hydel plant, and another showing a dry river bed. Both of them are factual, and both represent aspects of the river. Incidentally, I also have pictures of the river in the delta region during the drought, and could post them if necessary. Note, that during the drought, the river bed was dry, but at the end of monsoon, the water came right up to the road. Then last year, a friend had to cancel a trip to the area because of flooding of the roads. Water flow to the delta varies greatly according to season, and that is an important fact about the river. (An ideal pair of pictures would show the identical spot at both flood and drought.) Sincerely, --BostonMA00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
During a drought, KRS is also dry and so are major parts of the river and it is not confined to the part of the river near tirchirapalli. So showing a pic of a dry bed and pointing out that it is trichy or some other place might lead people to think that only that part is prone to drought. There are pictures on the net that show the dry beds of the Kaveri in Karntaka and other parts along its course too. Showing only this pic here can mislead people.
As far as I can see, that would be an appropriate way to illustrate that the flow of Kaveri varies greatly according to season. --BostonMA12:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, this pic is being questioned here and the author of the picture is yet to respond. Admin Sundar has also commented there. So let us wait for a response from the author of the picture.
Hi, I have uploaded a picture of a riverbed of a Distributary of Kavari in the Kavari delta if needed. It is not a particularly good picture, but I can certify that it was taken where I state. --BostonMA12:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
And more importantly, there is no mention about drought or drought in Trichy or any such thing anywhere in the article. Without a proper context being explained, the picture stands out as a sore thumb. Sarvagnya05:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you have taken an active interest in the Kaveri River article. Largely because I have not fixed this already, there are a variety of measures used for water volume and flow in the article, Tmc ft., acre feet, Ml per day etc. I would like to convert these so that they are consistent, leaving the original values in parentheses. Do you have a preference with regard to which units are used? --BostonMAtalk17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I suggest that we use TMC or TMCft because that seems to be the most popular unit used. Also that is almost the only unit used in the context of river water disputes(in India atleast). Sarvagnya20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I would vote for TMC. This unit is most commonly used for measuring river water volume, both in Media (like newspapers, TV and elsewhere) and in court of justice (in the judgements of Hightcourts and Supreme court). We will need to consistenly use the same unit across the article. - KNMTalk - Contribs02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Tmc ft. stands for Thousand Million Cubic feet. Mld, I believe stands for Millions of litres per day, although I would need to verify that before changing any numbers based on that unit.
In light of the current verdict by the Tribunal the water sharing part needs to be updated. I am thinking of nothing more than one sentence here since there is a seperate wiki entry on the issue. Lets not make any change in the main page untill we reach a consensus. I am thinking about something like
' The Tribunal which had been investigating the issue for 16 years finaly came out with the verdict of 419 tmc for Tamil Nadu and 270 tmc for Karnataka, a verdict which Karnataka is believed to chalenge.'Wikiality12311:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hogenakkal
The article mentions Hogenakkal in the Karnataka section and says the following : The great Hogenakal Falls marks the exit of kaveri from karnataka.
Since Hogenakkal Falls technically lies in TamilNadu, shouldn't it belong in the TN section ? And the above sentence reworded as: The great Hogenakal Falls marks the entry of kaveri into Tamilnadu ? Lotlil22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Concerns
All i could see is in this discussion is a emotional fight without any rationale. The age old tamil & kannadiga fight appear not subtle but much more plainly.Im shocked to see the complete absence of courtesy/basic decency.
In such controverial topics, it is best to take a disinterested stand and please dont make it a place to stage your personnal idealogies.The plain truth is cauvery is indeed a small river which is exploited much beyond its capacity by unscruplous damming and usage for water intensive crops by both the states. There has been not a single voice in this regard.
Also i wonder, if anyone of the people here would have faced the real brunt of it...not just saw the drought on a TV or even directly...i dont think anyone would have been ruined by it...so leave the issues to the real peoples who are affected by it and to the court....
Dont try showing your love for ur homeland/state/whatsoever...please do mind your business.--Prakt17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)prakt
The neutrality of this article is disputed
Can someone add a tag to this article section "Kaveri River Water Disputes"
Information in Line 100 is self biased and incorrect: According to a study conducted by the central government in 1972, the utilisation of water from Kaveri in Tamil Nadu was 489 tmc and Karnataka's utilization of 277 tmc. But a new survey by the central Govt shows that karnataka should have more water to support the agricultural land and drinking water for Bangalore, Mysore and Mandya. there is also a rumor that people of tamil nadu are lobbying in the central govt to get the judjement to their side.
According to International Watercourse law "Every state (Country/province/state) has the right to utilize the water within its own territory. However the right is limited and conditional. Each state can use its water in such a way that it does not injure the other water course states on the account of its utilisation. [refer page no 163]
And according to my understanding. Water is a common element that is required for human existance and sharing of water is purely based on the rivers drinage area. This would enable the availability of water to every single individual. --bookfreak (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If you dont use or dont know much about Kaveri River, please dont comment here. You benefit most if you just read from here.
"Kaveri river, also written as Cauvery in English" - Is this the kind of information we want to give on this Wiki page? No.
There's a lot more to the river Kaveri than just its various spellings across the world in various languages.
Kaveri is born in Karnataka, and as a matter of fact, it is considered as a river "belonging" to Karnataka.
It is like this everywhere in the world. By saying so, it would be childish to interpret that as saying everyone else is denied to take water from that river. It is just that Karnataka gives birth to Kaveri, and it has the right to say that it is called by this name in Karnataka.
Whether it is called Cauvery or whatever in Tamil, is not the important data this page needs to give.
Besides, it is meaningless to contradict the geographical location of a waterfall that is already known to be inside Karnataka side of the border separating KA and TN. It just shows that the person editing this portion is just bent upon making up a controversy out of simple and known facts. That the hogenakal controversy has come up now, again thanks to the TN assembly for this, has become enough reason for these commentators to come and edit all rubbish on these informative pages.
The point about Hogenakal being "inside" Tamilnadu is anyway being disputed. So wiki should avoid this mention in this and other related pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohith.br (talk • contribs) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to Indus river article. It originates in Tibet but a major river for Pakistan. Look at the number of languages its been expressed in. This is how an encyclopedia works. Moreover spelling out alternate spellings is also common in enclyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britanica has many such entried, especially for this enty on Kaveri itself. I would advice you to add it back to the article (I mean the alternate spell). Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ10:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Kaveri. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
