Decoding the Punjab river waters dispute beyond optics

THE Punjab river waters dispute has a long and chequered history. In its present form, it is often traced to the developments that took place in the wake of the division of Punjab in 1966. However, what happened much earlier in 1955 continues to hinge on the river waters issues facing contemporary Punjab. After the Partition, India became upstream and Pakistan a downstream riparian to the Indus river and four of its eastern tributaries — the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi and Sutlej. River Beas was entirely within India and Kabul totally outside. The headworks of the Ravi at Madhopur and the Sutlej at Ferozepur came to lie in India, whereas parts of the Upper Bari Doab and Dipalpur Canal went to Pakistan.

In this context, India wanted to attain full control on the waters of the three eastern rivers, which happened in 1960 with the signing of Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. The Union Government directed the states concerned on the Indian side to reach an agreement on the allocation of the surplus Ravi and Beas waters.

This was necessary for laying an effective claim for full control over these waters during negotiations with Pakistan. The Sutlej waters were already committed for use in areas within India. The Ravi-Beas waters were to be shown as being put to use already in areas within India.

Therefore, the Central Government asked Punjab, PEPSU, Jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan to reach an agreement for allocating 15.85 MAF Ravi and Beas surplus waters. Resulting from this plan, Rajasthan was allotted 8 MAF of water even though it was not a riparian to any of the rivers. The then united Punjab did not oppose it. It was only in the aftermath of Punjab’s re-organisation in 1966 that such issues started cropping up.

Thus, the Punjab river waters dispute emerged only after the state was re-organised in 1966. Following this, the successor states of Punjab and Haryana were to reach an agreement on the sharing of the Ravi-Beas surplus waters, as per Section 78 (1) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, within two years.

However, the states failed to reach any accord within this period. This led the Central Government to issue a notification in March 1976, popularly known as the Indira Gandhi Award, dividing the Ravi-Beas surplus waters between the two states evenly. The then Zail Singh-led Congress government of Punjab was not happy with the order. It wanted the Centre to reconsider it. But with the Centre sticking to its decision, the state government went silent. The Akali Dal opposed the notification.

With the stalemate on the issue continuing, a new water-sharing agreement was signed by Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan in December 1981 with the involvement of the then PM Indira Gandhi.

The Akali Dal rejected the new agreement as well. It launched the Nehar Roko Morcha (stop canal agitation) in April 1982 for preventing the digging of the SYL canal in Punjab, designed as a carrier for the allotted river water share of Haryana. The political turmoil that followed continued to rock the state for more than a decade.

With the Punjab violence taking a very heavy toll, the Central Government yielded to the Akalis’ demands in 1985. Resulting therefrom, an accord, known as the Punjab Settlement, was signed between Akali Dal President Harchand Singh Longowal and PM Rajiv Gandhi.

Following this, the Eradi Tribunal was constituted in 1986 for settling the river waters row of the two states. The interim report of the tribunal that came in 1987 also failed to find any solution acceptable to all.

With the impasse continuing, the matter landed in the Supreme Court. Finally, in June 2004, the court ruled in favour of Haryana, asking the Centre to get the SYL canal laid for taking Haryana’s share to its territory.

The SC judgment triggered the enactment of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004. The Act abrogated all water-sharing agreements signed by the previous governments. The intention of the then Congress-led Punjab government was to insulate the state from the liabilities and responsibilities arising from the accords signed previously.

The Punjab government wanted to be relieved of SYL obligations arising from the SC judgment. The ensuing litigation on the validity of the Termination Act remaining held up in the SC for years was nearing towards judgment in 2016. Informed guesses suggested that the verdict could go against Punjab. This led the then Akali government to pass the Bill for transferring the SYL land back to the original owners. Thus, taking one plea or the other, Punjab dodged compliance to the SC orders.

The governments of both Akali Dal and Congress undertook measures, which helped them avoid canal construction.

With further litigation on the issue continuing, the SC ruled in 2023 that water is a natural resource, which the states should learn to share. To this, all state-based parties have unequivocally reacted by saying that the state does not have even a drop of water to spare for the others. And that, come what may, the canal would not be allowed to be constructed.

The militant movement of Punjab, which ended in the early 1990s, has not seen any real closure. It may not end till the core issues continue to resonate. It should not go unnoticed that the Punjab movement, which led to the worst period of militancy, began on the river waters issue. Punjab peasants, who fully supported the movement, moved away from it only when they themselves became the victims of violence and saw such violence at odds with the Sikh values.

If at some stage, the river waters dispute comes for reckoning, the peasant support for the cause may not be lacking, as was demonstrated during their recent struggle against the three farm laws. The dispute, which has been the defining feature of the state politics for decades, may continue to remain so till a solution acceptable to the politically dominant class of peasants is found.

Such political compulsions can be read from the observation of the SC made on Thursday. Though the SC held that the de-notification of the SYL canal land by Punjab in 2016 was a case of “high-handedness”, it underlined that the matter cannot be “decided only on law. We have to take into considerations other factors.”

Comments