Mullaperiyar: Rethinking Dam Safety, Water Security and the Future of an Interstate Water System
Few infrastructure disputes in India have remained as politically sensitive, legally complex and emotionally charged as the Mullaperiyar issue. For more than a century, the dam has stood at the intersection of two very different but equally legitimate concerns. In Kerala, the discussion is dominated by the safety of people living downstream of the reservoir and the consequences that a catastrophic failure could have for communities, infrastructure and the environment. In Tamil Nadu, Mullaperiyar is closely associated with water security, particularly the irrigation needs and livelihoods of farmers who have depended on the diverted water for generations. Over time, these concerns have increasingly been presented as though one state must lose for the other to be protected. But that framing may itself be the central problem.
Kerala’s concern is about human safety. Tamil Nadu’s concern is about water security. Neither concern is unreasonable, and neither should be dismissed. The real challenge is to determine whether both can be protected through a long-term infrastructure and governance strategy. Instead of repeatedly asking whether Kerala should accept the existing dam indefinitely or whether Tamil Nadu should accept its replacement, the more important question is this: what kind of water infrastructure should support the Kerala–Tamil Nadu water relationship for the next fifty or one hundred years?
That question requires moving beyond slogans, political positions and recurring litigation. It requires engineering evidence, environmental assessment, legal clarity, institutional trust and long-term planning. Most importantly, it requires recognising that the question of replacing an ageing critical structure does not necessarily have to be framed as a question of taking water away from Tamil Nadu. A modern replacement, if technically justified, environmentally acceptable and legally structured, could potentially provide an opportunity to address safety concerns while preserving the water-security interests on which Tamil Nadu depends.
A structure shaped by history
Mullaperiyar is not simply a dam. It is the outcome of a remarkable nineteenth-century engineering undertaking that created a lasting water connection between the Periyar basin in present-day Kerala and the agricultural regions of southern Tamil Nadu. The project emerged from the 1886 agreement between the princely State of Travancore and the British Indian administration, which enabled the diversion of water from the west-flowing Periyar basin towards the east. Construction began in 1887 and was completed in 1895.
Among the individuals most closely associated with this undertaking was Colonel John Pennycuick, the British engineer who played a central role in the planning and construction of the Mullaperiyar project. Working under extraordinarily difficult conditions in the remote and heavily forested Western Ghats, Pennycuick and the engineering teams involved in the project confronted significant logistical, geological and construction challenges. The eventual completion of the masonry gravity dam and the associated water-diversion system represented a major engineering achievement for its time. The project demonstrated the possibility of redirecting the waters of the Periyar eastward and thereby creating an irrigation resource for areas of the then Madras Presidency that had long faced water constraints.
The significance of Pennycuick’s contribution, however, should be understood within the broader history of the project rather than through the personality of one engineer alone. The Mullaperiyar system was the result of an institutional, engineering and labour effort involving engineers, workers, administrators and local communities. Its historical importance lies not only in the construction of a large dam under difficult nineteenth-century conditions, but also in the transformation of water availability across parts of southern Tamil Nadu.
The diversion had profound consequences for the agricultural economy of the region. Over generations, irrigation supported by the Mullaperiyar system became closely connected with farming, employment and rural livelihoods. Agricultural communities came to depend on the availability of this water not merely as an infrastructure service, but as a foundation of their economic and social life. For many people in the region, therefore, Mullaperiyar is not simply a reservoir or a concrete structure. It represents a water system that has shaped livelihoods across generations.
That historical dependence must be acknowledged in any serious discussion of the future of Mullaperiyar. A proposal that treats Tamil Nadu’s water requirement as a secondary concern will inevitably encounter resistance, and understandably so. At the same time, recognising the historical importance of the water does not necessarily mean that the physical infrastructure through which that water is delivered must remain unchanged forever. The water relationship and the structure that enables it are not necessarily the same thing. Preserving the former may, in time, require rethinking the latter.
The challenge for the present generation is therefore not to diminish the achievement represented by Mullaperiyar or the contribution of those who made the project possible. It is to ask whether the same underlying water relationship can be carried safely and sustainably into the future through infrastructure and governance systems designed for the conditions of the twenty-first century.
Age alone does not establish failure
One of the weakest ways to argue for replacement is to say simply that the dam is old and is therefore unsafe. Age, by itself, does not prove structural failure. Infrastructure can remain operational for long periods when it is appropriately assessed, maintained, strengthened and monitored. The more meaningful question is not whether Mullaperiyar is old, but whether continued reliance on the existing structure represents the most responsible long-term infrastructure strategy.
Mullaperiyar was conceived, designed and constructed according to the engineering knowledge, materials, hydrological understanding and environmental context of the nineteenth century. The world around it has changed substantially since then. Downstream populations have changed. Infrastructure and settlements have expanded. Environmental regulations have evolved. Disaster-management systems have become more sophisticated. Hydrological and seismic assessment methods have advanced considerably, and the scientific understanding of climate variability has also changed.
None of this means that the engineers who constructed Mullaperiyar were wrong. They built an important and technically ambitious project using the knowledge available to them at that time. The question facing the present generation is different. It is whether infrastructure designed for another era should continue indefinitely as the principal foundation of a critical interstate water system, or whether a planned transition toward modern infrastructure should eventually be considered.
That is a legitimate infrastructure-planning question even if the existing dam continues to operate under the applicable legal and technical framework. A structure can continue to be operated safely today while governments simultaneously examine what infrastructure should replace it in the longer term. Continued operation and long-term replacement planning are not contradictory positions.
What the Supreme Court decisions actually establish
Any credible discussion of Mullaperiyar must acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decisions accurately. The 2014 Constitution Bench judgment did not accept Kerala’s contention that raising the reservoir level from 136 feet to 142 feet would, on the technical material before the Court, compromise the dam’s safety. The Court considered the strengthening measures and the technical and legal issues presented in the dispute and upheld Tamil Nadu’s position concerning the 142-foot level under the circumstances addressed by the judgment.
That judicial history is important and should not be selectively ignored. At the same time, the judgment should not be interpreted as a declaration that the structure is guaranteed to remain optimal or risk-free indefinitely. A judicial finding concerning the safety and operation of infrastructure under particular circumstances is not equivalent to a permanent certification of that infrastructure for every future condition.
Engineering does not operate on the assumption that structures are immortal. Structures are inspected because conditions change. Materials age. Hydrological conditions vary. Populations and exposure change. Scientific knowledge develops. Emergency-management expectations evolve. Consequently, recognising the Supreme Court’s position does not prevent a separate, evidence-based discussion about the long-term future of the infrastructure.
The responsible position lies between two extremes. It is neither scientifically appropriate to declare that the dam will inevitably fail nor reasonable to assume that it can therefore remain the preferred infrastructure solution indefinitely. The appropriate question is how risk should be managed over the long term and whether planned replacement should form part of that strategy.
The real issue is risk, not prediction
Public debate often revolves around one dramatic question: will Mullaperiyar collapse? That is not the most useful question for responsible policy-making. Dam safety is fundamentally an issue of risk rather than certainty. Engineers assess structural stability, foundation conditions, seepage, deformation, material behaviour, hydrology, flood loading, seismic conditions, instrumentation, maintenance and reservoir operations. They must also consider what could happen downstream if a serious failure were to occur.
The consequences matter because risk is not determined only by the probability of an event. It is also shaped by the severity of its consequences and the vulnerability of the population and infrastructure exposed to them. A low-probability event can still require careful management when the potential consequences are extremely serious.
This is why it is unnecessary and potentially irresponsible to claim that a particular number of people would die if the dam failed. Without a current, independently reviewed dam-break and inundation model, precise casualty estimates would be speculative. The actual consequences would depend on reservoir conditions, breach characteristics, rainfall, downstream topography, warning time, evacuation capacity and the distribution of people and infrastructure.
But uncertainty about the exact consequences does not justify ignoring the possibility of a catastrophic event. Modern dam-safety management is designed precisely around such uncertainty. The relevant questions are how rapidly water could reach downstream areas, how deep and fast it could become, which communities and critical facilities could be affected, how much warning could be provided and whether evacuation systems would function effectively.
Beyond the flood itself
A catastrophic dam failure, if it were ever to occur, would not necessarily remain a single flood event. The initial release of water could create a sequence of secondary disruptions. Roads and bridges could be damaged, limiting emergency access. Electricity infrastructure could be affected. Communication networks could become unreliable. Drinking-water and sanitation systems could be disrupted. Hospitals could face increased demand while transport systems are compromised. Agricultural land could be damaged, businesses could be forced to close, and families could be displaced.
The consequences could therefore extend across multiple sectors, transforming a hydraulic event into a broader humanitarian and economic crisis. The same event could simultaneously become a disaster for communities downstream in Kerala and a water-security crisis for communities in Tamil Nadu.
That is why the Mullaperiyar question cannot be reduced to a simple argument about the strength of a concrete structure. It is ultimately about the resilience of a much larger social, environmental and economic system.
The human dimension
Behind every technical assessment are people who have to live with the consequences of infrastructure decisions. For communities downstream, concern about Mullaperiyar is not merely theoretical. During periods of intense rainfall or heightened political discussion about reservoir levels, the possibility of a serious incident can generate anxiety and uncertainty.
That concern should not replace engineering evidence. Social-media claims, political statements and unverified predictions cannot substitute for scientific assessment. But the absence of a disaster so far should not be used to dismiss legitimate concerns about long-term risk either.
Good risk governance recognises both realities. It relies on evidence while taking human vulnerability seriously. The purpose of safety planning is not to create fear. It is to reduce the possibility that fear will become reality.
The environmental question
The environmental dimension is equally important. A catastrophic release could potentially cause erosion, sediment movement, debris transport and disturbance to downstream ecological systems. However, the exact environmental consequences of a hypothetical failure should not be presented as established facts without scenario-specific modelling.
At the same time, the environmental implications of constructing a replacement must also be taken seriously. The proposed replacement area is associated with the Periyar Tiger Reserve and environmentally sensitive landscapes, meaning that any new project would require rigorous assessment of forest, wildlife, hydrological and ecological impacts. Earlier project documents placed the proposed replacement within a formal environmental appraisal process, demonstrating that the issue cannot be treated as a purely engineering exercise.
A replacement should therefore not be justified simply on the basis that newer infrastructure is automatically better. A new structure would need to demonstrate that its safety benefits, water-security benefits and environmental consequences have been assessed together. The goal should not be to replace old concrete with new concrete. It should be to develop a more resilient and responsibly governed water system.
Tamil Nadu’s water security cannot be an afterthought
Any argument for replacement that does not give equal attention to Tamil Nadu’s water dependence is incomplete. The Mullaperiyar system has supported irrigation and agricultural livelihoods in southern Tamil Nadu for generations. The significance of that water was also recognised in the Supreme Court’s consideration of the dispute.
For the farmer, water is not a political slogan. It determines whether crops can be planted, whether investments in agriculture can be recovered and whether a household can maintain its livelihood. A sudden or prolonged disruption could affect agricultural income, employment, rural businesses and food production.
This is why a catastrophic failure of the existing system would not represent a victory for Kerala. Kerala could face a serious humanitarian and safety crisis while Tamil Nadu could simultaneously face a major water-security and agricultural crisis. The two states therefore have a shared interest in preventing such an outcome.
The challenge is to recognise that shared interest.
The false choice between safety and water
The traditional framing of the Mullaperiyar dispute is often presented as a choice between Kerala’s safety and Tamil Nadu’s water. But that framing assumes that the existing structure is the only possible mechanism through which Tamil Nadu’s water security can be maintained.
That assumption deserves examination.
The physical replacement of a dam does not automatically mean the elimination of the water relationship associated with it. What matters is the legal, technical and operational framework established around the replacement.
The more constructive question is therefore not whether Tamil Nadu should give up its water in exchange for Kerala’s safety. It is whether the water-security function of the existing system can be preserved through infrastructure that is better suited to contemporary safety, monitoring and environmental standards.
That is a question that can be investigated through engineering and law rather than settled through political rhetoric.
Why Tamil Nadu’s concerns about replacement are understandable
Tamil Nadu’s caution toward a new dam is understandable because the issue involves much more than construction. It concerns water rights, operational control, reservoir management, institutional continuity and trust between two states.
If a new structure were built, what would happen to the existing water arrangements? Would the quantity and reliability of water remain protected? Who would determine operational rules? What mechanisms would prevent future changes from undermining the interests of Tamil Nadu?
These are legitimate questions.
The answer cannot simply be a political assurance that the water will continue. Governments change, political priorities change, and institutional arrangements evolve. Long-term water security must therefore rest on clear legal and institutional mechanisms rather than personal trust between governments.
A credible replacement proposal would need to provide a framework through which Tamil Nadu’s legitimate water interests are clearly protected and independently verifiable.
A replacement should create institutional trust
The physical dam would only be one part of a future solution. The more important achievement could be the creation of a governance framework that reduces uncertainty between the two states.
Such a framework could define how water availability is protected, how operational decisions are made, how relevant data are shared, how monitoring is conducted, how emergencies are handled and how disagreements are resolved. It could also establish mechanisms that remain functional even when political administrations change.
This would change the nature of the conversation.
Instead of asking Tamil Nadu to trust a future promise, the two states could develop an arrangement in which water security is supported by transparent rules, technical monitoring and institutional safeguards.
The proposal would no longer be simply, “Trust us to build a safer dam.” It would become, “Let us establish a system in which safety and water security are both protected through clearly defined mechanisms.”
That is a much stronger basis for cooperation.
The proposed replacement is not a sudden idea
The idea of replacing Mullaperiyar is not merely a recent political demand. The proposed replacement has previously entered formal environmental planning processes. In 2018, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted Terms of Reference for preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan for a proposed replacement dam, with the process linked to agreement between Kerala and Tamil Nadu before environmental clearance.
The existence of such a process does not mean that replacement is automatically justified or inevitable. It does, however, demonstrate that the question has already entered formal governmental and environmental consideration.
That makes it even more important for future discussion to be based on current technical evidence rather than only on historical positions.
Time is the most valuable resource
One of the strongest arguments for beginning serious planning is that major infrastructure projects take time.
A replacement would require detailed investigations, hydrological studies, geological and geotechnical assessment, seismic analysis, environmental appraisal, statutory approvals, financing, engineering design, procurement, construction, instrumentation, testing and commissioning. In addition, an interstate agreement would need to address water security and operational arrangements.
These processes cannot responsibly be compressed into a crisis timetable.
That is why the argument that replacement would take too long actually points in the opposite direction. If a future replacement could take many years to study, negotiate and construct, then the responsible time to begin planning is while the existing system can still support a controlled transition.
Waiting until an emergency removes the time needed for careful decision-making.
Planning for replacement does not mean declaring the existing dam unsafe
This distinction deserves emphasis because it is central to a rational debate.
Beginning a replacement process does not require the government to announce that the existing dam is about to collapse. Nor does it require the public to believe that disaster is imminent.
The ideal scenario would be one in which the existing system continues to operate under the applicable legal and safety framework while a future replacement is investigated, assessed, negotiated and, if ultimately justified, constructed carefully.
That would allow the existing system to continue serving Tamil Nadu while the two states work toward a long-term solution.
In other words, the objective should not be emergency replacement.
It should be planned transition.
The safest time to plan major infrastructure renewal is before circumstances force the decision.
A modern replacement should be more than a new dam
If a replacement is eventually determined to be appropriate, it should not simply reproduce the existing structure using newer construction techniques. It should incorporate the best available contemporary approaches to dam safety, hydrology, seismic assessment, monitoring, emergency management and environmental protection.
Modern instrumentation could provide continuous information about structural behaviour and reservoir conditions. Contemporary hydrological modelling could improve understanding of extreme events. Updated seismic assessment could inform structural design. Dam-break modelling could improve emergency planning and evacuation preparedness. Real-time monitoring and transparent data systems could strengthen institutional confidence.
The opportunity would therefore be larger than the construction of another reservoir structure.
It could be an opportunity to create a modern critical-infrastructure system in which engineering, monitoring, environmental management, disaster preparedness and interstate governance are integrated from the beginning.
Climate change requires better planning, not dramatic claims
Climate change is increasingly part of discussions about long-lived infrastructure, but it should not be used carelessly.
It would be scientifically irresponsible to claim that climate change means Mullaperiyar will inevitably fail. At the same time, it would be equally inappropriate to design future infrastructure as though hydrological conditions will never change.
A structure intended to serve for another century should be assessed using the best available understanding of rainfall variability, extreme precipitation, hydrological uncertainty and plausible future climate conditions.
The relevant question is therefore not whether climate change guarantees disaster. It is whether future infrastructure decisions are sufficiently resilient to uncertainty.
That is a much more defensible and useful question.
Seismic considerations require the same discipline
The same principle applies to seismic risk. It is not enough to say that the dam is located in a region where earthquakes are possible and therefore must be unsafe. Nor is it responsible to dismiss seismic considerations simply because a catastrophic event has not occurred.
Site-specific geological and seismic investigations, appropriate hazard assessment and structural analysis are required to understand the actual risk.
A modern replacement would have the advantage of incorporating contemporary seismic criteria and monitoring systems from the design stage. But that should be presented as an engineering opportunity, not as proof that the existing structure is necessarily unsafe.
The distinction between risk assessment and risk assertion is critical throughout the Mullaperiyar debate.
The transition must protect both states
If replacement is pursued, the transition should be designed around the legitimate interests of both Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
For Tamil Nadu, the central requirement would be confidence that its water security will not be compromised during or after construction. Earlier government records concerning the proposed replacement have contemplated continued water supply to Tamil Nadu during construction, providing a basis for considering how such continuity could be addressed in a future arrangement.
For Kerala, the central requirement would be a credible pathway toward modern infrastructure capable of reducing long-term dependence on an ageing critical structure and improving protection for downstream communities.
Neither state should be asked to surrender its fundamental interest.
The challenge is to construct a framework in which those interests are protected simultaneously.
From confrontation to transition
A sensible transition would begin with continued operation of the existing system under the applicable legal and safety framework while updated technical, hydrological, geological, seismic and environmental assessments are undertaken. Those assessments should provide the evidence needed to determine whether replacement is technically and environmentally justified.
At the same time, Kerala and Tamil Nadu could negotiate the institutional framework required to protect Tamil Nadu’s water security. Only after the technical, environmental and legal dimensions are sufficiently developed should construction proceed.
If a replacement is eventually constructed, it should undergo rigorous testing and commissioning before the transition is completed. The future status of the existing structure should then be determined according to engineering, environmental and legal requirements.
This approach avoids two equally problematic extremes: treating replacement as an immediate emergency or postponing the question indefinitely.
It creates a third possibility: planned transition based on evidence.
Doing nothing is also a decision
There is a tendency to assume that not replacing infrastructure means preserving the status quo. In reality, the status quo changes continuously.
The structure continues to age. Population and infrastructure downstream continue to change. Water demand evolves. Environmental regulations develop. Climate and hydrological understanding improves. Engineering standards advance.
Choosing not to plan a replacement is therefore not a neutral decision. It is a decision to continue relying on the existing system.
That choice deserves the same level of technical scrutiny as the decision to construct a new one.
The question should therefore not be, “Why build a new dam if the existing one is functioning?” It should be, “What is the most responsible long-term infrastructure strategy for a water system expected to serve future generations?”
The farmer and the downstream family are asking different questions
The Mullaperiyar debate is often conducted by governments, courts, political parties, lawyers and technical institutions. But the people who ultimately bear the consequences are ordinary families.
A farmer in Tamil Nadu wants to know whether water will continue to reach the fields.
A family living downstream in Kerala wants to know whether it can remain safe.
Neither question is unreasonable.
The farmer should not have to choose between water security and the safety of another state’s people. The downstream family should not have to accept unlimited risk simply because another region depends on the water.
A successful solution must therefore allow both people to ask their questions and receive credible answers.
A larger lesson for India
Mullaperiyar is also a national infrastructure question.
Across India, there are ageing dams, reservoirs, bridges, industrial facilities and other critical assets whose benefits and risks do not always remain within a single administrative boundary. Some infrastructure is located in one state while its economic benefits extend into another. Environmental impacts can cross borders. Historical agreements can remain relevant for generations. Political relationships can complicate technical decisions.
Mullaperiyar demonstrates how difficult such situations can become when infrastructure ages while institutional arrangements remain contested.
The broader lesson is that ageing interstate infrastructure should not be managed only after it becomes a crisis. There must be mechanisms for independent technical assessment, risk-based planning, environmental review, interstate negotiation, long-term financing and controlled transition.
If Kerala and Tamil Nadu can eventually develop such a framework for Mullaperiyar, the experience could have significance far beyond this single dam.
The question Tamil Nadu should ask
Instead of asking only why Kerala wants a replacement, Tamil Nadu could ask a longer-term question:
If this water system is expected to support agriculture and livelihoods for another hundred years, what infrastructure should carry that water?
That question does not require Tamil Nadu to surrender its water interests.
It asks whether the water relationship can be made more resilient by separating the question of water security from dependence on a particular ageing physical structure.
If the answer is yes, then the next challenge is to design a legal and institutional framework that guarantees that water security.
That is a question that can be negotiated.
The question Kerala should ask
Kerala, in turn, must ask itself what it is prepared to offer in return for Tamil Nadu’s confidence in a replacement.
It is not enough to say that a new structure will be safer. Tamil Nadu must have credible reasons to believe that its water security will remain protected.
That means transparency, legally robust arrangements, predictable operating rules, independent monitoring and mechanisms that remain reliable even when governments change.
If Kerala wants Tamil Nadu to accept the idea of replacement, it must demonstrate that the proposal is not about taking away water. It is about improving the infrastructure through which the water relationship can continue.
That distinction should be at the centre of Kerala’s communication.
No infrastructure is permanent
There is an uncomfortable but unavoidable truth at the heart of this debate: no infrastructure is permanent.
A dam may operate for fifty years, one hundred years or more. But responsible infrastructure planning cannot assume that any structure will remain the optimal solution forever.
The engineers who built Mullaperiyar created an extraordinary engineering achievement for their time. They could not have anticipated today’s population, environmental laws, disaster-management expectations, climate science, monitoring technology or the complexity of interstate governance.
That is not a criticism of them.
It is simply the nature of infrastructure.
Every generation inherits structures from the previous generation and eventually has to decide whether to maintain, strengthen, replace or retire them.
The question facing the present generation is therefore not whether the engineers of the nineteenth century made the wrong decision.
The question is whether we are prepared to make the right decision for the twenty-first century.
The future should be planned before the crisis
The responsible time to plan major infrastructure renewal is not after a structure has become an emergency.
It is while there is still time to investigate carefully, negotiate openly, assess environmental consequences, secure approvals, arrange financing, construct properly and test independently.
That is not an admission that the existing dam has failed.
It is an acknowledgement that infrastructure planning should operate ahead of crisis rather than behind it.
The greatest advantage of beginning early is not technology.
It is time.
Time to study.
Time to negotiate.
Time to design.
Time to assess.
Time to build.
Time to test.
Time to transition.
Once an emergency begins, much of that time disappears.
Beyond the old argument
For more than a century, Mullaperiyar has been discussed as though Kerala and Tamil Nadu are engaged in a contest in which one state must win and the other must lose.
That approach has produced litigation, political confrontation and repeated cycles of disagreement, but it has not eliminated the underlying problem.
The future requires a different approach.
Kerala does not need Tamil Nadu to abandon its legitimate water interests. Tamil Nadu does not need Kerala to abandon its responsibility to protect downstream communities. Neither state needs to wait for a catastrophe before considering what comes next.
If replacement is ultimately found to be technically, legally and environmentally justified, it should not be presented as Kerala’s dam against Tamil Nadu.
It should be presented as an opportunity to create a modern water-security and safety system capable of serving both states.
The water relationship can continue.
Agriculture can continue.
Livelihoods can continue.
But the infrastructure supporting that relationship can evolve.
That is not an abandonment of history. It is responsible stewardship of the future.
The engineers who built Mullaperiyar made a decision for their generation.
We now have to make a decision for ours.
If Tamil Nadu wants Mullaperiyar water for another hundred years, Kerala should not respond by asking Tamil Nadu to choose between water and safety. It should say:
Let us find a way to secure that water for the next hundred years while protecting the people who live downstream.
And if Kerala asks for stronger protection of human life, Tamil Nadu should not have to respond by choosing between water security and safety. It should be possible to say:
We will protect our water, and we will also protect human life.
That is not surrender.
It is not defeat.
It is not one state winning over another.
It is recognition of a simple principle:
Water security and human safety are not enemies. They are two responsibilities that must be carried together.
Mullaperiyar has already served generations.
The responsibility now is to ensure that the next generation does not inherit another century of the same dispute, but a water system that is safer, more resilient, environmentally responsible, legally clear and capable of serving both Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
The future of Mullaperiyar should therefore not be decided by fear, political rhetoric or the assumption that the past must determine the future.
It should be decided by evidence, engineering, environmental responsibility, law and cooperation.
Plan before crisis. Protect people. Protect water. Respect the environment. Follow the law. Build on evidence. And make the future safer than the past.
Comments
Post a Comment