Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
Credit: PTI File Photo
Though some parts of Karnataka received a spell of rain in the past few days, the state is facing one of the worst droughts in many years. Yet, the affected people, especially farmers, have not received any substantial relief, with the state and the centre sparring with each other. It finally took a nudge from the Supreme Court for the centre to release a paltry sum, a small fraction of what the state had sought. The government has declared 223 of the 236 taluks as drought hit. A survey indicates that agricultural and horticultural crops suffered losses ranging from 50% to 100%. Karnataka is the second driest state in the country after Rajasthan. Of the 10 agro-climatic zones in the state, five fall in the dry zone category. In fact, the entire rain-fed agriculture area is drought prone, making Karnataka one of most vulnerable states to drought in the country. During the monsoon last year, the rainfall deficit was 56% in June and 76% in August, the highest in 122 years, accounting to the meteorological department. According to Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, the state has not experienced such a drought in three to four decades.
According to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, though Karnataka had suffered losses to the tune of Rs 48,000 crore, it had sought just Rs 18,000 crore for relief work, in accordance with National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) guidelines. With the centre inordinately delaying the relief, the state was forced to knock on the doors of the apex court. Following this, the centre released Rs 3,454 crore, which, according to the state, is woefully inadequate. Relief includes payment of compensation of Rs 5,662 crore to farmers and other measures like replenishment of ground water.
Though specific guidelines are laid down on the release of drought relief, this is not the first time that the state and the centre have disagreed on the amount to be released. While the centre usually accuses the state of padding up its figures, the state says the centre is unnecessarily suspicious and adopts a holier-than-thou attitude. Instead of making this a prestige issue, the two should arrive at a via media, perhaps with a joint survey, to determine the extent of loss. The hapless farmer, already under undue strain, should not be made to suffer even more because of an ego clash between the centre and the state.