As far as Haryana is concerned, make no mistake; by no yardstick is it a riparian state as far as the Indus River Basin is concerned. Only three rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – form a part of the Indus Basin. But Haryana is a riparian state on the Yamuna (Ganges) Basin. The Ghaggar river, which is between the two basins, has its own sweep.
But like Rajasthan, Haryana’s claim on Bhakra water of Sutlej river and also electricity generated therein is just because it was a part of the joint project.
However, any further water from Beas, Sutlej and Ravi of the Indus Basin can’t be given to Haryana as it is not a riparian state on these rivers. Thus the 3.5 MAF water of Beas and Sutlej rivers allocated to Haryana in 1976 was blatantly unfair. This was one of the excesses of the Emergency.
Political Misstep
Later, when Parkash Singh Badal became chief minister in 1978 he failed to gauge the seriousness of the matter and issued the notification for acquiring land for the SYL project, while moving the SC against the decision. No wonder the quibbling over the SYL has continued. Subsequently, the Congress government of Darbara Singh in Punjab was made to withdraw the state’s legal suit in the SC, which enabled the foundation stone of the SYL to be laid in 1982.
Punjab’s plea vis-a-vis Haryana on Indus River Basins is simple: Haryana is not a riparian state. It is for this reason that the Cauvery river waters dispute between Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala does not apply here (all three are riparian states). There is an argument that Haryana can claim the Beas-Sutlej waters as being a former part of Punjab. By the same argument, Punjab can do the same on Yamuna waters to which Haryana is entitled (as a riparian state) as being “one state” before 1966!
Inter-State Water Dispute
- Bone of contention is the water sharing arrangement in the
Indus Basin that allows Rajasthan and Haryana to stake claim over rivers.
- Punjab must invoke the international riparian principle and
insist on seeking compensation from Rajasthan.
- Punjab should also focus on harnessing the
gains from the seasonal Ghaggar River that flows through
it.
- Instead of courts or state assemblies, water dispute can be
resolved mutually between the centre and respective state government.
- By invoking entry 56 of the Union List, the Centre can intervene
in inter-state water disputes.
Punjab Versus Other States
There is also no doubt that Punjab can use more water of the three rivers by undertaking certain steps. One, the Harike Lake, which has shrunk, could be desilted to be able to store more water, which now flows into Pakistan.
Two, Punjab can build another dam on the Ravi, downstream of the Ranjit Sagar Dam, to harness the river water. This will ensure that the Upper Bari Doab Canal (UBDC) flows to the brim all year round. With these steps, some of its water may be available in surplus to be given to other states.
Punjab’s complaint is that Haryana and Rajasthan, which don’t enjoy riparian status in the Indus Basin, are getting substantial water from the rivers of the basin. Rajasthan’s entitlement is 11.2 MAF water -- 8.6 MAF through Rajasthan canal, 1.5 MAF through Bhakra canal and 1.1 MAF through Ganga canal. Haryana has been allotted 7.83 MAF (4.33 MAF through Bhakra, 1.62 MAF out of 3.5 MAF allotted from Ravi-Beas through Bhakra canal). The remaining 1.88 MAF to flow through the contentious SYL is the bone of contention. This is not taking into account what Haryana rightfully gets from the Yamuna (5.6 MAF) and about 1.1 MAF of the Ghaggar.
Finding a Solution
The larger issue is if Rajasthan is not a riparian state on what basis is it getting water from Punjab? If indeed Rajasthan should be provided with water for its parched land on the “unity in diversity” principle of nationhood, should Punjab, the nation’s food bowl, not be compensated on the same basis?
Punjab’s political leadership failed to safeguard the interests of its farmers by insisting on their being settled on the Rajasthan canal, as on Ganga canal. Clearly, the regime of Maharaja Ganga Singh of the erstwhile Bikaner state, who allowed Punjabis to settle down in Sri Ganga Nagar District, was more benevolent than the post-Independence regimes of Rajasthan and Delhi.
Even now, Punjab must invoke the Internationally accepted riparian principle with Rajasthan and insist on:
- Allowing Punjab farmers to settle in the Rajasthan canal (Indira
Gandhi Canal) colonies. The numbers can be worked out by calculating the total
farmland available.
- Alternatively, have Rajasthan government provide barren land
free of cost to Punjab to set up solar panels so that it helps the latter in its
electricity needs.
- Has the Rajasthan government shared the losses due to water logging
in Punjab’s Muktsar, Bathinda and elsewhere due to the canals flowing
into Rajasthan.
Haryana’s claim for Ravi-Beas waters holds no ground, except when the water is indeed “surplus”. The SYL canal came about on fallacious grounds and sooner it gets a burial the better it would be. More so because no political party in Punjab will risk taking a contrary stand. However, Haryana, as the primary riparian state in the plains, has a strong case for more water of the Yamuna river.
As in the case of Ravi river for Punjab, the waters of both the Yamuna and the Ghaggar rivers, especially during the monsoon season, need to be harnessed. As of now, Ghaggar is only being dammed at Ottu Head near Sirsa for its own areas and also for Rajasthan. It is not out of place to mention that Punjab is not claiming its right over the seasonal Ghaggar river, even though it flows through it.
Following the Riparian Principle
As far as water to Delhi is concerned, no state would grudge the national capital’s requirements.
Given the seriousness of this emotive issue, a solution to the vexed water problem of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan lies neither with the Supreme Court nor with Parliament or the state assemblies. It rests on the internationally recognised riparian rules which the Centre has repeatedly flouted. The Centre has often resorted to the overriding of Entry 17 of the State List (List II) – which lists water as a state subject -- by invoking Entry 56 of the Union List (List 1) – giving the Union government powers of regulation of interstate rivers -- of the Constitution’s Seventh Schedule.
By doing so, the Centre has flouted the Helsinki Rules of 1966 on water resources of inter-state rivers. This politically expedient step has alienated riparian states like Punjab, which bodes ill for good Centre-State and inter-state relations.
(The writer is a Chandigarh-based senior journalist)
This is the concluding part of a two-part series tracing the background of the inter-state river waters dispute between Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. You can read the first part here.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)