Basic facts relating to SYL Political Canal that Supreme Court needs to be told

 

Basic facts relating to SYL Political Canal that Supreme Court needs to be told

 

Ground Zero

Jagtar Singh

 

The Supreme Court recently made a strong comment in the context of the resumption of the construction of the Satluj Yamuna Link Canal that Punjab should share its natural resource that the river water is.

Punjab is one state whose  more than 99 per cent of the cultivable area is under irrigation and 70 percent of this irrigation is dependent upon tube wells. Only 30 per cent of the area of this state through which three rivers flow is under canal irrigation. About 70 per cent of the water from these three Punjab rivers flows down to Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi and this is part of the record.

Going by the newspaper report, there seems to be some information and communication gap resulting in this comment.

At the same time, it is stated here that although the Riparian principle is supposed to be criteria for the sharing of river waters, there is no reason to disagree with the comment made by the Supreme court in the context of Satluj Yamuna Link Canal dispute between Punjab and Haryana that “Water is a natural resource and living beings must learn to share it – whether individual or states”. But then so is coal.

This criterion should be followed by every state treating this comment as the guidelines, including those where coal is mined. These states charge royalty on coal that otherwise is natural resource.

So far as the communication and information gap is concerned,  the country must  know that Punjab is the only state in India that has been the most magnanimous so far as the sharing of the river water is concerned.

Punjab is the only state in the country 70 per cent water from whose rivers is flowing out to the neighboring states and this is part of the record available at every level.

The counsel representing Punjab should have brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that there was no parallel in India to this magnanimity. The water from Punjab rivers flows down to Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. It should also be told that at the time of reorganisation, Punjab was not made partner in the Yamuna water although this river was riparian to this state till 1966. The criterion has to be uniform and the magnanimity should have reciprocated. Ironically, Haryana and Rajasthan have also been made partners to the Ravi waters. The country should also know that the Ravi waters would have to cross Beas and Satluj rivers to reach Haryana as this river touches India-Pakistan border.

The basic issue here concerns the completion of the Satluj Yamuna Link Canal whose construction stopped in 1990 following the killing of its chief engineer and superintending engineer of Punjab portion by the Babbar Khalsa activist Balwinder Singh Jatana and his associates. About 90 of the work had been completed by then. Not a brick has been added since then. The memory of this action got revived in the song SYL created by slain artist Sidhu Moosewala. Perhaps it was reference to Jatana’s action that invited ban on this song in India. It is the SYL Canal that was planned to carry Haryana’s remaining share from Punjab rivers. Punjab was co-riparian to Yamuna but this state has been denied share from this river. Haryana is getting main supply from Punjab rivers through the Bhakra Canal system.

It is not for the first time that this issue has come up in the Supreme court where it was referred to for the first time in 1979 by Haryana demanding implementation of the award announced by prime minister Indira Gandhi during emergency in 1976 allocating 3.5 MAF each from ‘surplus Ravi-Beas waters’ to Punjab and Haryana under Sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. Then chief minister Giani Zail Singh had lodged protest against this award and it is part of the Punjab government’s record but also accepted Rs 1 cr from Haryana for initiating this project. The first notification to acquire land for this project and that too under emergency clause was issued in February 1978 when Parkash Singh Badal was the chief minister heading the Akali Dal government. Intervention from Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee chief Gurcharan Singh Tohra stalled this move following which Haryana approach Supreme court followed by Punjab that challenged ultra vires of the sections 78, 79 and 80 of the reorganisation act. Rest is history.

The SYL canal was designed to carry 3.5 MAF of this share.

This dispute over apportionment of Punjab river waters is rooted in partition of two Punjabs in 1947. The two Punjab entered into negotiations as dispute arose leading to intervention by the World Bank. This intervention resulted in the signing of Indus Water Treat in 1960 between Prime Minister Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru and Pakistan President General Ayub Khan. That treaty continues to be operational.

It is the 1955 allocation of Punjab river waters prior to 1960 treaty that is important as India was to put up its case on the basis of water usage. As per the record, Punjab was told to forward its requirement. Rajasthan was included at that stage. The Rajasthan Canal was constructed under the 1955 agreement. Water can’t be stored in Punjab and would have flowed down to Pakistan.

The canal part of the Bhakra project, however, had already come up and one branch of this system carried water to Rajasthan. None talked of Riparian rights in context of Bhakra system. Rajasthan was made partner in the Bhakra management board.

The apportionment of river water dispute came on the agenda of the Akali Dal mainly after Indira Gandhi laid foundation stone of the SYL canal on April 8, 1982 at Kapoori in Patiala district.

It was Indira Gandhi who put the Punjab river waters aflame with this action.

Akali Dal made the commitment to complete its construction under the Punjab accord signed between prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal on July 24, 1985 and it was stopped by Jatana in 1990.

Much water has flowed down the Punjab rivers since then but now through the SYL Canal.

It was to counter one of the interventions from Supreme Court that the Congress government in Punjab under chief minister Capt Amarinder Singh in 2004 annulled all previous awards, accords and agreements. Some years later, the Akali Dal-BJP government under Parkash Singh Badal denotified this canal. The status quo continues.

Now the Supreme Court has made another intervention.

There are two dimensions to the dispute in the present context.

Out of 3.5 MAF allocated to Haryana, the state has all along been getting part of this share through the existing Bhakra system. As per the record of the Haryana government, the dispute relates to the remaining 1.88 MAF only. The SYL Canal was designed for larger share.

The SYL Canal is designed to augment irrigation systems in parched land. This gives rise to one very basic aspect. What would be the cost of the cultivation of that crop irrigated by this canal as compared to the areas near the canal head? It is simple question of cost-benefit analysis. The Supreme Court should go into this aspect too. Why should farmers in these areas encouraged to cultivate wheat and paddy rather than going in for crops suitable to those agro-climatic zones? It is not a question of politics but economics.

There is yet more important dimension in the context of modern technology that the Supreme Court and the Centre can’t overlook.

The issue is of just 1.88 MAF of water whereas much more water can be conserved by using modern technology of irrigation and water harvesting.

This sensitive matter should be viewed in the backdrop of modern water management technology rather than raising the passions and regional tension. What is needed is pragmatic approach.

Punjab has been and continues to be the food bowl of the country whose 99.9 per cent of the cultivable land is under assured irrigation. The Supreme Court and the Centre must be impressed upon the fact that 70 per cent of this land is under tube well irrigation and only 30 per cent under canal irrigation. This data is available in every statistical abstract. And Punjab is the state through which three rivers flow.

Is it not ironic that 70 per cent of the area in the state through which three rivers flow is tube well irrigated while 70 per cent of the water from these three rivers flow out to Haryana and Rajasthan?

And Punjab is being advised to share its water resources.

The issue has to be resolved pragmatically keeping all these factors in view.

It is an issue that has the potential to ignite the waters again and the rivers on fire have earlier been too dangerous.

And Punjab must renovate its canal system that has been lying neglected after power to run tubewells was made free. Punjab’s canal system is inefficient and every party that has been in power should share the blame rather than just raising the pitch over SYL Canal.

Going by the record available, the SYL Canal  is a political project and needs to be scrapped.