The Supreme Court of India has done what political parties and leaders of the country should have done long ago. On 9 July, it served an ultimatum to Punjab and Haryana governments to resolve their river water dispute through negotiations. I have repeatedly argued, first in 2016 and then in 2017, that the Sutlej Yamuna Link canal dispute is a limited issue, which can and should be resolved through political negotiations, and not by a court order. It is ironic that the Supreme Court had to say this and force open a window of opportunity.
On the face of it, the Supreme Court’s recent order is somewhat odd, though. It candidly acknowledges that its 2002 order – asking Punjab to build the Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal within a year – has not been executed. Instead of ordering swift implementation or punishing the guilty, the Supreme Court asked the two main parties to come to a settlement before the next hearing on 3 September. It clarifies, however, that any settlement must be acceptable to Rajasthan as well, the third state involved in this dispute. It also urges the central government, “at the highest level”, to facilitate this compromise. Legal experts might dispute the judicial merits of this order, but I find it judicious as it holds out an opportunity for reconciliation.
Real dispute not as big
Such reconciliation must begin by appreciating, first of all, that this is a very limited dispute. The Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan allotted the entire water of Sutlej, Ravi and Beas rivers to India. There is no dispute about the internal allocation of Sutlej water, estimated to be 14.01 million acre feet (MAF): Punjab gets 8.15 MAF, while 4.4 MAF goes to Haryana and 1.46 MAF to Rajasthan. The only dispute is about the sharing of Ravi and Beas waters, estimated to be anything between 15.9 to 18.3 MAF.
The share of Punjab was initially settled at 22 per cent by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1976, but was subsequently revised to 25 per cent by mutual agreement of all chief ministers in 1981, and then to 28 per cent by the Eradi Commission in 1987. There is a real dispute, but not as big as it is made out to be. At the most, the real dispute is about 1 MAF water.
Also read: Indian states have fought over shared rivers for long. Modi must make them cooperate now
The next step should be about acknowledging that most of the claims made by both Punjab and Haryana are full of hyperbole and political rhetoric. The fact is that the water that is allowed to flow to Pakistan due to mismanagement could be more than the amount of water under dispute. The additional water, which is currently used by farmers in the Malwa region of Punjab pending a settlement, is valuable to agriculture in the state, but is not a matter of life and death for a state that faces a problem of excessive irrigation. Similarly, the SYL canal would be of critical help to the semi-arid south Haryana region, but successive Haryana governments have used it as an alibi to cover up their unwillingness to share existing water with south Haryana region.
If we are willing to see through posturing and double-speak on both sides, we can move towards a resolution.
What politicians must do
Such a resolution would involve the government and the political leaders of Punjab climbing down from some irresponsible rhetoric and plainly unconstitutional actions pursued by successive regimes. One, you cannot invoke international riparian law in an inter-state water dispute within the country. This dispute has to be resolved within the framework laid down by the Indian Constitution. Two, no government can simply abrogate legal agreements entered into by the previous government. Thus, the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 was ridiculous, dangerous and unconstitutional. Three, no government of the country can simply refuse to obey the orders of the Supreme Court as the Punjab government did after the orders in 2016.
Also read: Govt releases details on 3 river projects to divert waters away from Pakistan
Haryana government and political leaders must also step back from their rigid and myopic stance. Yes, they have an upper hand in the Supreme Court, but the last 17 years have demonstrated that winning a court case does not bring water. Even if the Supreme Court were to find a way to enforce its orders and force the building of SYL canal by the central government, any sensible leader in Haryana should see that an animosity with the people of Punjab is not worth it. The long-term interest of the people of Haryana is in working out an amicable and swift political settlement with the government of Punjab. Haryana needs an assured time-frame for the construction of the SYL canal and the delivery of water. In return, Haryana should be willing to settle for a lower share than granted by the Supreme Court decree.
A framework to end dispute
Here, then, is my four-point framework for a negotiated settlement. One, Haryana and Rajasthan surrender a part (say about 5 per cent) of their share of Ravi-Beas water to Punjab, in recognition of the water’s continuous usage by Malwa farmers for several decades now. Two, Punjab in return should agree to an assured time-frame for the construction of SYL canal and the unhindered passage of water through it thereafter. Three, both Punjab and Haryana review their respective unsustainable cropping practices, excessive use of water for irrigation, and its fair distribution within the state. Four, the central government should fill the vacancies in the water commission and get it to settle the dispute about the exact quantum of water available in Ravi and Beas. It should also find ways to plug the leakage of India’s share of water to Pakistan.
Also read: A 58-year-old pact still settles water dispute between India & Pakistan
The real question is: who will bell the cat? Who will nudge both the state governments to the negotiating table and push them to a reasonable settlement? The Supreme Court has already taken the first step. It must keep up this pressure and not lapse into inexplicable silence as it did between 2004 and 2016.
But the real push must come from the central government. Resolving long-standing disputes between constituents of the nation is a better test of nationalism than the ability to wage a war against Pakistan from TV studios. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must accept the prime responsibility of working out this agreement in the larger national interest.
The author is the national president of Swaraj India. Views are personal.
Technically, Haryana can get the water for SYL canal by drawing water (by gravity) from Bhakra reservoir directly via Himachal Pradesh (without using area of Punjab) by transferring water to Ghaggar river without caring Punjab if Haryana politicians want to make it a major political issue in the state like in Punjab.
Himachal will not divert water root without Panjab’s permission, himachal is upper riperian and Panjab is lower riperian so upper riperian is not able to divert any water stream without lower riperian’s consent . It is as per riperian law. Water is our natural resource and forcefully diversion of water will deal like act of war by Indians against Panjab and it will create freedom movement in Panjab ! We have more than 2000 years experience to deal with invaders!
Haryana is also a lower riparian state of Sutlej river basin. The north western part of Panchakula district in Haryana is drained by the tributaries of Sutlej river (please see google earth maps). Similar to Punjab, Haryana also has right to convince an upper riparian state Himachal Pradesh.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10217013185936895&id=1084597248
Yoginder yadav is just propagating his blind Indian hindi nation state agenda with false arguement, He belongs from haryana and hindi belt so he propagate his false agenda under the shadow of nationalism, entire article is based upon false facts, first he wrote that the riperian act is not applecable on inter state issue but he forgot about narmada river case judgement where supream court of India rejected rajasthan’ claim on narmada water on the basis of riperian act ,
2 he wrote the judgement will be based on constitution of India while before that Indian supream court can recheck the panjab reorganisation act’s provision of section 78-79-80 are as per Indian constitution? Indian specially blind hindi state looting our resources as colonial power and in last 72 years India acting as imperial power with Panjab and looting our natural resources as colonial power, we need royality of our resources as Panjab received during british period from bikaner state and patiala state.
Building a SYL canal will not help. First of all, by changing the natural course of water we are abusing the nature. We need a sustainable solution.
How funny is this that, we want water for irrigation in arid regions at the cost of fertile lands. But, the writer seems to be in a hurry to ‘bell the cat’.
Good work Yogendrajee. At last, someone is talking about resolution of an old dispute which will bring great prosperity to lakhs of farmers. How long can Haryana continue to deplete its underground water resources ?
Mr Yadav will decide what proves Modi’s nationalism!
And you think people in Punjab will not notice it?
Due to lapse of long time, SYL canal issue has become a popular sentimental issue whose status could not be changed by judiciary/union govt. However the needed extra water (nearly 100 tmcft) in the Sutlej river basin for the needs SYL canal can be augmented / transferred from the Lingdi Nadi (a tributary of Tso Moriri lake in J&K state) . It is possible by digging a 9 km long gravity canal from the Lingdi Nadi to connect to the Ungti Chu river (a tributary of Sutlej river in J&K state). Punjab’s ego can be satisfied and Haryana’s water problem is also solved at very low cost by the generosity of J&K state.
I liked the punch line about fighting wars with Pakistan from TV studios.
Find fair, just, enduring solutions to long standing problems. That is the highest task of governance. Inter state disputes re water are especially emotive and problematic. To solve problems with neighbours like Pakistan is the highest form of statesmanship. India does not change in sixty months. Or even in one twenty. But each government should leave the country and its people better off at the close of its term than at the beginning.