Gurugram: A day after the Supreme Court warned his government to not compel it to issue tough orders on the Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal row, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann struck a defiant note on the matter.
After an emergency Cabinet meeting Thursday, Mann tweeted that “not even a single drop of extra water will be given to any other state at any cost”.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to conduct a land survey meant for the construction of the Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal in Punjab to ascertain how much work has been done in its territory.
It told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that the court is concerned about the execution of the SYL canal construction in Punjab and hence, the Centre should conduct a survey to determine the extent of work completed in the state.
“You (Punjab) find a solution or we will have to pass an order, which will be unpalatable. You cannot violate a court order, you cannot say that land (acquired for SYL) is now in possession of farmers. Don’t compel us to pass an pass an order. We have so far restrained ourselves,” the top court said.
There have been unending protests, the killing of labourers and engineers by militants, court hearings and orders, a Presidential reference, abrogation of all water accords by the Punjab assembly and denotification of land acquired for the canal, in the last six decades.
So, what is the SYL canal row that the successive governments and decades of litigation have been unable to resolve and what is the issue about? ThePrint explains.
Also Read: Haryana civil service shocker: 90k applicants for 100 vacancies, but just 61 reach interview stage
Water dispute at root, canal construction a corollary
At the root of the problem is a virtual war over water between Haryana and Punjab, while the issue of the construction of the SYL canal is a corollary.
When Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966, its resources were divided, but the terms of sharing water from the Ravi and Beas rivers were left undecided at that time.
Haryana’s claim over river waters, like all other resources, stemmed from the principle that when a state is formed, it has a proportionate right over all the assets of the parent state.
However, Punjab has been denying Haryana’s claim on the principles of riparian rights.The principle of riparian rights says that the owner of the land adjacent to a water body has the right over its waters. Punjab also claims that it has no water to spare for Haryana.
While the issue kept pending for a decade, the Centre issued a notification in 1976 that both Punjab and Haryana would get 3.5 million acre-feet (MAF) of water. But, Punjab never agreed to this notification.
Later, on December 31, 1981, Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan signed an agreement when the Congress was in power in all three states and the party had returned to power at the Centre winning the general election in January 1980.
The agreement was based on an assessment that the total availability of Ravi and Beas water is estimated at 17.17 MAF. The agreement envisaged 4.22 MAF for Punjab, 3.5 MAF for Haryana and 8.6 MAF for Rajasthan.
While the issue of the division of water was kept in limbo in 1966, the SYL canal was planned at that time so that whenever the division of water happens, Haryana could take its share of water to its fields.
The 211-km long canal was to link Sutlej and Yamuna with a 121-km stretch to be constructed in Punjab territory and the rest of 90 km in Haryana.
However, in all these 57 years since the canal was first conceptualised, Haryana and Punjab have seen a lot of politics play out, turning it into an emotive issue.
Haryana completed the SYL in its territory by June 1980. Punjab began construction in 1982, when Indira Gandhi, the then prime minister, launched the work at Kapoori village of Patiala.
However, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) launched a prolonged agitation, Kapoori Morcha, against the construction of the SYL canal.
In July 1985, the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi signed an accord with the SAD in a bid to find an amicable solution and agreed to set up a tribunal headed by Supreme Court judge V. Balakrishna Eradi. The Eradi Commission submitted its report in 1987, increasing the share of Punjab and Haryana to 5 MAF and 3.83 MAF.
The interstate rivalry took a violent turn a year later. In 1988, militants killed several labourers working on the canal. In July 1990, M.L. Sekhri, chief engineer of the irrigation department, and Avtar Singh Aulakh, superintending engineer, were shot dead, leading to the stalling of work in Punjab.
Protracted fight
The matter went to the Supreme Court when Haryana approached it in 1996. The verdict came in 2002 when it directed Punjab to complete the canal within a year. Punjab then filed a review petition against the judgement, which was dismissed.
In 2004, the apex court asked the Central Public Works Department to take over the construction of the canal in Punjab.
But, the Amarinder Singh-led Congress government passed the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act (PTAA), which abrogated all its water agreements with the neighbouring states, in the assembly immediately after the judgement.
The Rashtrapati Bhavan then sent the matter to the Supreme Court to decide on the Act’s legality. On November 10, 2016, the Supreme Court set aside the Act that abrogated all water accords by the Punjab government.
The Punjab government then denotified the 5,376 acre of land acquired for the purpose of the construction of the SYL canal and announced its return to the original owners.
The Supreme Court, however, passed an order in February 2017 ordering the execution of its earlier judgement and told both states to maintain the law and order at every cost. It told the Centre to hold meetings with both states jointly to find a mutually agreeable solution, but several rounds of meetings have failed to do so.
Now, with the Punjab government yet again taken a tough stance, the dispute seems to be far from over. The chief minister plans to convene a special session of the state assembly to discuss this issue, according to government sources.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: In drought-prone Kachchh, Sardar Sarovar project is ‘dream come true’. But not for all farmers