Cfont>
By Arabinda Ghose
Vasundhara Raje Scindia |
SYL imbroglio
One, feels hurt at the rash action of the Chief Minister Amarinder Singh subverting a Supreme Court decree by getting the State Assembly pass a law terminating the state'sagreement of water-sharing between Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi, signed on December 31, 1981.
Although the Punjab government is issuing full-page and then half-page advertisements regarding various aspects of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 and is highlighting in bolder and bolder letters every day in the advertisements that Section 5 of the Act stipulates continuation of supply of
waters to the states concerned, the Captain, nevertheless, is being called the “Terminator”.
There are several aspects of this imbroglio. First, is Punjab justified in claiming that it has the right to terminate the December 1981 agreement? Questions have been raised about the right of the state to unilaterally annul an agreement without a reference to the other signatories to the agreement.
Do the waters of the Ravi, the Beas and the Satluj, which flow “through” Punjab, belong to Punjab alone? All these three rivers do pass through Punjab, but the Ravi and the Beas originate in the Himachal.
Secondly, do the waters of the Ravi, the Beas and the Satluj, which flow “through” Punjab, belong to Punjab alone? All these three rivers do pass through Punjab, but the Ravi and the Beas originate in the Himachal Pradesh, near the Rohtang Pass and the Satluj originates in the Tibet and passes through Himachal Pradesh en route Punjab. Can Himachal Pradesh, if it so desires, stop the flows of these rivers (purely on a theoretical premise) and deprive Punjab of any water from these three rivers?
Thirdly, what about the waters of these three rivers, which under the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, can be fully utilised in India? Although some politicians claim that the volume of those waters flowing into Pakistan is negligible, the Army has said that the annual volume of water going to Pakistan is three million acre-feet (maf) (see The Tribune, June 14). This is a substantial volume and can take care of the nine lakh hectares of land which Captain Amarinder Singh says will go dry if Punjab continues to supply water to its neighbours, none of which are either a riparian or a basin state.
Fourthly, who framed the law that non-riparian and non-basin states cannot claim part of rivers flowing through a particular state?
These questions need debates, which should be held in a calmer atmosphere than what is prevailing now. The question that should be immediately addressed by every section of the people of India is whether a state can or should claim exclusive rights over the waters flowing in rivers through it? Do the people of, say, Orissa have any claim on the waters of the Satluj? Can Madhya Pradesh claim waters of the Cauvery? If not, why not? Isn'tIndia one country?
Although the Constitution of India has placed “water” under the State List (Entry 17, List II), there is an escape proviso in this entry with regard to inter-state rivers. Under that provision (Entry 56, List I) Parliament by law can take over control of inter-state rivers in public interest. The Supreme Court had suggested application of this provision in 2002 while dealing with a public litigation on the inter-linking of rivers.
However, it will be a very difficult task to convince the states and the people of India that the control of the inter-state rivers should now be vested with the Union Government. However, for the sake of our future generations, with a crisis regarding water confronting us menacingly, it is necessary that the entire nation comes to a consensus on this matter so that issues like the SYL canal construction do not bedevil the future of our children and their children. One hopes Captain Amarinder Singh too agrees to this suggestion.
