The dispute over water release from Telangana’s Jurala project has escalated after the Bharat Rashtra Samithi demanded the withdrawal of police cases against 11 farmers who allegedly opened sluice gates to channel water to standing crops. The demand has placed irrigation management, crop protection and the criminalisation of farmer protests at the centre of the latest conflict around the project.
In a statement reported by Deccan Chronicle, BRS senior leader T. Harish Rao said farmers acted after becoming frustrated with what he described as the silence of irrigation officials. According to his account, the farmers opened the project’s sluice gates to allow water into the canal.
The report does not provide details of the specific police sections invoked, the police station where the cases were registered or the present status of the investigation. It also does not include a response from the irrigation department, the police or the Telangana government to the allegations made by the BRS.
Harish Rao alleged that the filing of criminal cases against the farmers showed the Congress government’s recklessness in handling the irrigation dispute. He said crops were withering because the government had failed to provide irrigation water and accused the administration of victimising farmers when they took action themselves.
The BRS has demanded the immediate withdrawal of the cases and called on the government to ensure irrigation water for standing crops under the Jurala project. The demand links the legal action directly to the administration of a public irrigation asset, where decisions over water release can affect farm operations and crop survival.
The dispute also highlights the operational importance of project-level communication. Farmers’ decision to open sluice gates, as described by the BRS, indicates a breakdown in the process through which irrigation requirements, canal releases and crop conditions are communicated and managed. However, the available report does not establish whether water was technically available for release, whether the action affected downstream users or whether the gates were opened in accordance with any irrigation protocol.
Jurala’s canals serve agricultural areas that depend on timely water releases during the crop season. When the supply schedule is uncertain or delayed, farmers can face losses even before a formal decision on water allocation is publicly explained. The immediate dispute therefore involves both the legal status of the 11 farmers and the government’s responsibility to clarify how water releases are being determined.
The BRS statement calls for two parallel steps: withdrawal of the cases and provision of irrigation water to protect the standing crops. The next confirmed developments will be the response of the irrigation authorities and police, and whether the government addresses the demand concerning the 11 farmers.
