TRANSBOUNDARY DISPUTES Politics and Litigation Play Havoc Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal The conflict over sharing of the Beas, Ravi and Sutlej waters began in 1966, when Haryana was carved out of Punjab and the new state demanded a share under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which itself is not recognised by Punjab. Despite numerous interventions by the centre and the Supreme Court, the Sutlej Yamuna canal remains incomplete and a general stalemate prevails. In the midst of this controversy, the main issues facing farmers in the two states remain unanswered – that of inefficient irrigation policies and practices and increasing cultivation of water intensive crops like paddy and sugar cane. INDIRA KHURANA to take decisions, leading to unpopular de- cisions. he Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal (SYL) In 1960, India and Pakistan signed the was supposed to bring Beas, Ravi Indus Waters Treaty, which reserved waters Tand Sutlej river waters from Punjab of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej exclusively to Haryana and Rajasthan. Unfortunately, for India. Six years later, when Punjab was this canal has been a serious bone of reorganised, the new state of Haryana contention between Punjab and Haryana. claimed its share of waters. In 1976, the For decades, the SYL has generated union government announced that both hysterical propaganda against the com- states would receive 3.5 million acre-feet pulsions that have motivated politicians (MAF) of water from the available annual 608 Economic and Political Weekly February 18, 2006 flow of 15 MAF through the construction In 1976, the centre intervened – following Singh Longowal, arrived at the historic of the SYL. This would benefit farmers an impasse between the two states on water Punjab accord which recorded the in southern Haryana who could then use sharing – and divided the unutilised water resentment of the people of Punjab; a it through lift irrigation schemes. of the Beas and the Ravi between these two tribunal under a retired Supreme Court The source of water for the SYL is the states and Rajasthan. Punjab found this judge was set up. Justice Eradi was ap- Bhakra dam. The canal starts from the tail unacceptable since this distribution allot- pointed to head the Ravi-Beas Tribunal end of Anandpur Hydel canal near Nangal ted water from the Ravi that the 1966 act and come to a conclusion on how much and goes up to the Western Yamuna Canal had not taken into account. Moreover, the water Punjab and Haryana actually used, from where it collects waters of the Ravi distribution was based on utilisation in so that the surplus could be apportioned and Beas. Currently, Haryana gets only 1960, not on actual use in 1976. accordingly. The accord also stated that 1.62 MAF of the allotted 3.5 MAF, and When the two states could not come to an the SYL canal would be completed by the balance is to be made available through agreement, the ministry for water resources August 15, 1986, allowing Haryana and the SYL canal. issued a notification in 1976, unilaterally other downstream states to utilise what- In 1978, the Punjab government moved apportioning the waters of the three rivers ever share of water the tribunal would the Supreme Court and thus started a series between Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. eventually allot to them. There was one of litigations, with both sides remaining This notification estimated the surplus river stipulation: the farmers in Punjab would intractable. Meanwhile construction of the waters as 15.85 MAF and allocated 3.5 not have to compromise with lesser water. canal started in 1981 in both Punjab and MAF each to Punjab and Haryana, 8 MAF The Akalis thus endorsed the 1976 noti- Haryana. In Punjab, construction came to a to Rajasthan, 0.65 MAF to Jammu and fication and the 1981 interstate agreement. grinding halt in 1990 due to militancy and Kashmir and 0.2 MAF to Delhi, cutting Justice Eradi discovered that the use of the killing of a senior officer and labourers. off irrigation water to about 3.6 lakh ha Ravi-Beas waters by farmers in the three In 1996, the Haryana government went to in Punjab. Until 1966, the area of Punjab, states totalled 9.711 MAF: 3.106 MAF by court and when judgment was awarded in which is now Haryana, got only 0.9 MAF. farmers in Punjab, 9.711 by farmers in June 2004, a huge drama unfolded. In July The ground realities, however, were Haryana and 4.985 by farmers in Rajasthan. 2004, a special session of the Punjab as- different. The surplus water available in This left some 6.6 MAF surplus water to sembly passed a bill – the Punjab Termi- Punjab was a mere 1.2 MAF. The then be divided between these two states. Jus- nation of Agreements Bill, 2004 – terminat- chief minister, Giani Zail Singh asked for tice Eradi made an interim award: 5.00 ing all agreements relating to sharing of a review of the notification. In 1978, the MAF was awarded to Punjab and 3.83 waters of Ravi and Beas with Haryana. Akali government moved a petition in the MAF to Haryana. The arithmetic of this Up to March 1, 2005, approximately Supreme Court challenging the constitu- award did not add up since 8.83 MAF was Rs 700 crore had already been spent on the tional validity of the notification. allotted against the available 6.6 MAF. canal. Approximately Rs 250 crore is still Meanwhile, the first phase of the SYL The water below the rim stations of the required for completion. A case is being canal in Haryana, a 75.5 km long stretch Ravi and Beas, which were the lowest heard in the Supreme Court pertaining to from Ismailpur to Karnal which began in points at which the data was recorded, an act passed by the Punjab government. 1976 was completed in March 1982 at a helped make up the difference. Punjab cost of Rs 40 crore. pointed out that this water was useless On the Offensive In 1978, Punjab chief minister Prakash since no dam or barrage could be built Singh Badal green signalled construction along the Pakistan border to store it. There are several reasons for the conflict in the state. However, the government felt In 1987, Punjab thus contested the Eradi over SYL: short-changed and moved the Supreme tribunal award on grounds that the tribunal (a) Punjab considers the formation of Court. Haryana also went to court demand- had overestimated the free water available Haryana under the Punjab Reorganisation ing implementation of the central govern- and underestimated the use of water by Act 1966 illegal. ment notification. Punjab farmers. (b) The Punjab Reorganisation Act does In 1981, the next chief minister from a In July 1988, justice Eradi adjourned the not mention sharing of the Ravi waters different political party, Darbara Singh, tribunal because of violence in the state. while the 1976 decision of the union withdrew the case and signed an agree- The tribunal began functioning again in government does. ment increasing the share of Rajasthan by November 1997, after being ordered by the (c) Dispute over the amount of surplus 8 MAF. An agreement with Haryana and Supreme Court to do so. With no clear water actually available based on which Rajasthan was arrived at, wherein, based decision having been taken by the tribunal, the allocations are made. on new data, additional water was given the Haryana government again approached (d) Political compulsions of governments to Punjab and Haryana. According to this the apex court. at the centre and the state. agreement 3.5 MAF was allocated to In January 2002, the Supreme Court Haryana and 8.60 MAF to Rajasthan out ordered that Punjab complete the con- Chronology of Events of the surplus flow of the Ravi and Beas, struction of the SYL within 12 months then estimated at 17.17 MAF, based on on the failure of which, the centre would The conflict over sharing of the Beas, 1921-60 flow data. Punjab got 5.07 MAF appoint a central agency to complete the Ravi and Sutlej waters began in 1966, from these rivers. This agreement created work. when Haryana was carved out of Punjab a furore in Punjab since it was believed In July 2002, the government of Haryana and the new state demanded a share under to have been signed under pressure. approached the Supreme Court to ensure the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which in In 1985, the then prime minister Rajiv that the Punjab government kept to the itself is not recognised by Punjab. Gandhi and Akali Dal leader Harcharan deadline. Economic and Political Weekly February 18, 2006 609 On January 15, 2003, the deadline ex- the help of former solicitor general, Soli Capital Territory of Delhi to file written pired. This was the seventh time that the Sorabjee with the aim of nullifying the submissions on facts and the question of state had missed it. agreement with retrospective effect. law formulated under the presidential In January 2004, the Supreme Court To retain control over the SYL the chief reference under Article 143 (1) of the rejected the plea of the Punjab government minister dug up the Northern India Canal Constitution, seeking opinion on: to refer the controversy to a larger bench. and Drainage Act, 1873 for amendment. (a) Whether the Punjab Termination of In June 2004, the Supreme Court di- The amendment proposed would make it Agreement Act, 2004 and its provisions rected the centre to construct the unfin- mandatory for any work on a canal – are constitutionally valid; ished part of the SYL canal in Punjab to maintenance, repair or construction – that (b) Whether the act and the provisions are facilitate the sharing of river waters be- ferried water beyond the borders of Punjab in accordance with the provisions of the tween the two states.