MULLAPERIYAR - WE MUST ACT PROPERLY

Mullaperiyar remains a controversial subject for quite sometime. All these controversies have been created by the successive governments of Kerala. When the matter has reached the Apex Court we have absolutely failed to present the facts to the court. It appears that we have some preferences over this.

Let us have a close look at the technical aspects of the dam. The dam was constructed in the year 1895. It has a length of 1200 ft and height of 155 ft from the river bed. The height from the deepest foundation is 176 ft. The front and the rear faces of the dam are of rubble masonry, lime, surkhi and sand mortar. The hearting is of lime surkhi concrete with 3.125 parts of stone and 1 part of mortar. The proportion is 2 parts of lime, 1 part of surkhi and 3 parts of sand. The centre core constructed with lime surkhi concrete occupies about 60% of the volume of the dam. 

The dam has a catchment area of 624 sq km. The original FRL conceived in 1886 was 144 ft. 13 years after completion in 1908 the FRL raised to 152 ft. In 1964 after detailed examination the FRL was brought down to 150 ft. It was further reduced to 145 ft in 1978 and 136 ft in 1979. (Now after 42 years of last examination,Tamil Nadu is trying to take it to the originally proposed level of 152 ft, after 114 years.) These are all the basic technical aspects.

Now getting into the lease agreement of 999 years, the first question is whether any individual or any so called authority can legally command the forthcoming 30 generations (appropriate for 999 years) what to do and what not to. That too, in a democratic nation like ours. This agreement in another way look like this; one man enter into an agreement with another man that he would feed the latter with the former's own hand for 300 years. One should always consider the life span of the former who agreed to feed.

Another important aspect need consideration in this matter. There were three more dams constructed in India in the same period of Mullaperiyar. Two of which have already been reconstructed and one, it is understood that the reconstruction is under way. (No neighbouring state was dictating terms whether these were need to be reconstructed. In our case what is located within our boundary is being operated at will by others with no consultation or discussion about any consequences)

If we want to have real solution for this we must express the facts to the right one at the right time at the right place. The very first thing we must do is to get the dam thoroughly examined by two internationally recognised agencies simultaneously in the presence of representatives preferably from the judiciary as well as from the government of Tamil Nadu and the government of India. Further actions as deemed fit may be taken after this. This is the only way to sort out the issue. However, if the dam is ordered to be reconstructed, we must keep supplying water to Tamil Nadu from alternative sources, during the period of reconstruction.

In short, we must convincingly explain the court that 1) this lease 

agreement or any lease agreementm of this nature for that matter, cannot remain valid for 999 years, especially in a democratic nation like ours ,  2)  this dam cannot remain operational and need to be reconstructed on top most priority (as per the results of the inspections by two teams) and 3) under no circumstances TN should be allowed to operate the dam instead they should ask us and we shall do it for them.

The readers may please try to reach this the concerned authorities.

(Indebted to web sources pertaining to technical data presented under, Mullaperiyar dam tecnical details dated Nov 26, 2021)

K V George