Punjab must respect court’s verdict on SYl
The recent judgement by the Supreme Court to settle the decades-old fight between States of Punjab and Haryana over the Sutlej Yamuna link (SYl) canal is welcome. The apex court while striking down the Punjab Government’s law on SYl, said that it is unconstitutional for it to terminate a water-sharing agreement with other States. The way the SYl issue has been politicised so far will not help iron out the contentious issues with the neighbouring State of Haryana. While honouring the court’s verdict, it must be seen that genuine concerns of Punjab should not be sidelined. However, water battles should not be taken to a stage where political parties indulge in blame-game. The manner in which the Congress State unit of Punjab is pursuing the issue, blaming the current Shiromoni Akali Dal-BJP allaince Government, will only worsen political tension in the State. Precisely, it is not the right moment to showcase which political party is more concerned about the people of the State. Rather, it is time to understand the ground realities under which the court had issued the declaration for the benefit of both the States of Punjab and Haryana.
The SYl issue dates back to the creation of the Haryana from the undivided Punjab in 1966. When Haryana was created, Punjab was not ready to share the river waters of Ravi and Beas with the former. But records say that when the Punjab Reorganisation Act was implemented in 1976, the Union Government issued a notification allocating 3.5 million acre feet (MAF) to Haryana out of undivided Punjab's share of 7.2 MAF. To avail the waters of the Sutlej and the tributary of the Beas by Haryana, a canal known as SYl was planned and subsequently, its work started during the time of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1982. Since the initial days, the Akali leadership has been opposing the water-sharing agreement with Haryana. Therefore, the construction of the canal could not be completed. After receiving no help from the Union Government, Haryana approached the Supreme Court to direct the Punjab Government for completetion of the SYl work. By the time the court directed the Punjab Government to finish the remaining work within its territory, the State legislature passed the ‘Punjab Termination of Agreement Act' in 2004. This Act came as a severe blow to Haryana. When the court earlier issued directions to the Punjab Government, it should have not passed the Act which terminated the water-sharing arrangement with Haryana. It is noted that the court has issued the current order in the same light as it did in the historic Cauvery and Mullaperiyar water disputes cases. Thus, the court said, “A State cannot, through legislation, do an act in conflict with the judgement of the highest court, which has attained finality”. From this perspective, the Punjab Government, barring political propaganda, should have settled the water issue with Haryana. It can in no way say that it is not going to share water with anyone. Equally, it is Haryana's right to have the fair share of water allotted to it in the past. Hence, Punjab must allow the SYl work to complete so that the water war between the two neighbours comes to an end. Dragging the conflict will only hurt developmental work in both the States.