Centre’s surprise shuffle on Mullaperiyar panel sparks fresh row

The Union government’s decision to replace Kerala’s nominee on the Mullaperiyar expert committee with a representative from Uttar Pradesh has raised eyebrows in Thiruvananthapuram.

The long-standing, emotive dispute surrounding the Mullaperiyar അണക്കെട്ട് (Mullaperiyar dam) has taken a new administrative turn. In a move that has caught many in the state administration by surprise, the Centre has removed the sitting Kerala representative from the expert committee tasked with overseeing the dam’s safety and operations. The vacancy has been filled by an official from Uttar Pradesh, a decision that is already being scrutinized for its lack of local representation in a matter of such critical importance to the state.

A shift in representation

For years, the committee has been a focal point for Kerala’s concerns regarding the structural stability of the century-old dam. The inclusion of a state-appointed expert is typically seen as the primary channel for the state to voice its apprehensions about water levels and seismic risks. By bypassing a local nominee in favor of an official from the northern state, the Union government’s national move has effectively sidelined the state’s direct oversight in this specific oversight body.

While official communication remains sparse, sources indicate that the restructuring is part of a broader push to recalibrate federal panels. However, the optics of the appointment are difficult to ignore. In the context of a project that holds immense social and political weight, the appointment of an outsider to a committee that essentially holds the power to influence regional safety protocols is bound to trigger resistance.

The bigger picture

Why does this matter? Beyond the immediate administrative shuffle, this development signals a tightening grip by the Centre on inter-state water disputes. The deep-rooted anxieties of the local population are tied not just to engineering assessments but to the perceived neutrality of the experts involved. When a state feels its voice is being diluted in a technical panel, the trust deficit between the state and the Centre inevitably widens. This move risks turning a technical safety debate into a fresh political report of federal overreach.

Whether this change impacts the upcoming review of the dam’s safety status remains to be seen. Historically, these committees have been the only bridge between the state’s safety concerns and the Centre’s regulatory authority. By altering the composition of the panel, the government is not just changing a name on a list; it is altering the power dynamics of a project that has been a flashpoint for decades.

As stakeholders await further details, the focus remains on whether the new nominee will prioritize local geological inputs or adhere strictly to the central mandate. For now, the move sits uncomfortably with the local narrative, adding yet another layer of complexity to the special oversight required for the dam’s future.