Punjab Chief Minister's move on river waters disruptive and anti-national
Added: (Tue Mar 20 2007)
Pressbox (Press Release) -
New Delhi, 20th March 2007. Even before settling down to the business of administering the State after the impressive victory in the State Assembly elections, Punjab Chief
Minister Parkash Singh Badal has declared that he would amend the law passed
by the State Assembly on June 4, 2004 during the rule of the Congress Party
in order to complete the "unfinished" task of denying waters of the three
rivers passing through Punjab to Haryana and Rajasthan.
On March 3, the Chief Minister declared that his government would scrap
Section 5 of the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act (PTAA), which safeguards
the usage of waters of the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej for Haryana and
Rajasthan.
It may be an over-reaction to term this move "disruptive and anti-national",
particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Badal is a very senior leader of
the country and the "nationalists to the core" BJP is part of the
Government, but one cannot help because by declaring this intention Mr.
Badal is set to violate several of the fundamental laws of the Country which
should invite imposition of President's rule under Article 356 of the
Constitution.
His "oneupmanship" over his rival Capt Amarinder Singh, who had got the PTAA
Bill passed unanimously in the State Assembly on July 12, 2004 terminating
all agreements with the neighbouring States but keeping the provision of
supply to Haryana and Rajasthan intact under section 5 of the Act, is not
only a faulty move on several counts but is disruptive for the country's
unity and integrity, to put it mildly.
As a senior politician, he cannot be unaware that the entire issue has been
referred by the President of India to the Supreme Court in July 2004 for its
opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution. Until this opinion is
expressed by the Supreme Court, any action on the water issue would amount
to contempt of the court and Mr. Badal, at this age, should remain prepared
to serve any sentence passed against him by the apex court for this breach.
The basic principles regarding river waters are that it is a "negative
commodity" and does not belong to anyone. Secondly, if Mr. Badal's principle
is accepted, then Himachal Pradesh can easily claim that all the waters of
the three rivers- the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej which flow through that
State belong to them as they first flow through HP before entering Punjab.
The first two rivers originate in Himachal Pradesh and the third in Tibet,
after which it flows through Himachal Pradesh, entering Punjab only after
the Bhakra resevoir (Gobindsagar).
Punjab may consider the fact that the Gobindsagqr reservoir is situated
within Himachal Pradesh, and by taking recourse to Mr. Badal's and Mr.
Amarinder Singh's logic, that State can as well divert waters from the
reservoir
towards say Uttarakhand and then on to Uttar Pradesh, bypassing Punjab.
Mr. Badal has stated that he would apply the Riparian principles for his
move to ensure exclusive use of the river waters for Punjab. What apparently
he means is that since these three rivers do not touch either Rajasthan or
Haryana, they have no rights over these waters. This is a fallacious
argument. He also forgets the conditions under which the Indus Waters Treaty
of September 1960 was signed.
First, the Ravi Bear Water Disputes Tribunal has shown that both Rajasthan
and Haryana are part of the Indus basin and so can legitimately claim supply
of waters from that river or its tributaries. Since under the Treaty, the
Indus. the Jhelum and the Chenab have been given to Pakistan and the Ravi,
the Beas and the Sutlej to India, the basin States of Rajasthan and Haryana
are entitled to share the waters of these three rivers with Punjab and
Himachal Pradesh as well.
Thirdly, it must be remembered that the Treaty was signed only after it was
agreed that vast areas of Rajasthan and southern Punjab (now Haryana) can
be irrigated from the waters of these three "eastern rivers" and India had
paid an amount of Pound Sterling 62.06 million to Pakistan for enabling that
country build structures in their country to regulate the flow of the three
eastern rivers after they cross into Pakistan for the purpose of maintaining
the vast irrigation potential created in western Punjab areas before
Partition.
That money, it is contended, was given by India and not the State of
Punjabalone. Therefore the whole of
India can utilize the waters of these three rivers, and not Punjab alone.
It is surprising that any politician in Punjab can even contemplate stoppage
of waters to Rajasthan from the "Punjab" rivers. Do they want that the
Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana and the Gang canal (NOT Ganga canal) would be
scrapped because they receive waters from the Sutlej from the Ferozepur and
Harike Barrages? Do they want that Rajasthan would once again revert to its
old status of a desert State?
In view of such disruptive moves by several States, it is time that water is
transferred from then State List (Entry 17) to the Concurrent List in the
Constitution so that "water" becomes the joint responsibility of the States
and the Centre. The decision to keep "water" in the State list was taken
when our Constitution makers lifted lock, stock and barrel from the
Government of India Act, 1935 for writing the 1950 Constitution. Even in
that Act, water continued to be entry 17 in the State list in the seventh
schedule. When the Constitution was given by the people of the country to
themselves on January 26, 1950, and the 1935 Act was repealed, then
provisions for water as also agriculture, remaining in the State list,
continued, with near-disastrous consequences