SYL Controversial Canal issue is politics for Haryana, survival for Punjab, needs to be dropped

 

SYL Controversial Canal issue is politics for Haryana, survival for Punjab

 

Ground Zero

Jagtar Singh

Yesterday’s meeting on the controversial Satluj Yamuna Link Canal issue between Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and his Haryana counterpart Manohar Lal Khattar in the presence of Union Jal Shakti Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, as expected, ended in stalemate.

This canal is to carry waters to Haryana from the Punjab rivers under the 1976 Award of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that was rooted in Punjab Re-organisation Act of 1966 that led to creation of Haryana.

It is pertinent to mention that historically, this region was never part of Punjab but transferred to this state by the British colonial government along with Delhi in 1958 as punishment for the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny. While Delhi was taken out after capital of colonial India shifted from Fort William, Calcutta, the Haryana region continued to be part of Punjab till 1966.

The construction of this canal the foundation stone of which was laid by Indira Gandhi at Kapoori village in Punjab on April 8, 1982 was 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 song titled SYL by Sidhu Moosewala was ostensibly banned due to reference to Jatana though no reason was given for it. Punjab river waters have been virtually on fire for years during militancy.

Khattar has reiterated the well known stand of his state that the basic issue is that of  construction of the canal and not the availability of water in Punjab rivers per se. The Supreme Court has taken almost similar stand.

The issue, however, needs to be reviewed pragmatically under the changed situation.

Before the changed situation is discussed, it is pointed out that Punjab is the only state in the country 70 per cent of whose river waters flow out to neighbouring states of Punjab, Haryana and semi-state of Delhi.

And Punjab happens to be granary of India.

The irony, however, is that less than 30 per cent of the area under cultivation is irrigated by the canal water and the rest by the tube wells.

The present wheat-paddy crop cycle was encouraged by the Union Government under Green Revolution to feed the country. Paddy was not popular in Punjab before Green Revolution.

 

 

 

The problem is that the politicians in Punjab continue with the rhetoric that not a drop of water would be allowed to flow to other states while 70 per cent is already flowing out and the same cannot be stopped.

Punjab had objected immediately after Indira Gandhi had announced her award in 1976. Of course, 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 Akali Dal had, of course, launched Morcha at Kapoori against construction of this canal that was later merged with Dharamyudh Morcha.

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

Haryana has been drawing more than 1.60 MAF from this share all along through the Bhakra canal system. The Shiromani Akali Dal made the commitment to complete construction of this canal within a year under the Punjab accord signed between prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal on July 24, 1985. It was stopped by Jatana in 1990 when almost 90 per cent of the work on this project had been completed. That structure has been damage since then.

The SYL Canal is designed to augment irrigation systems in parched land of Haryana. 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. It is not a question of politics but economics.  The cost-benefit analysis was never done, not only of this project but also of the Rajasthan Canal that is known as the Indira Gandhi Canal in the desert state carrying water from Punjab rivers.

There is yet more important dimension. 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.

Going by Khattar’s emphasis that it is construction of canal that should be prioritised, it is evident that it is more of a political issue.

The BJP in Haryana had raked up this dispute between the two neighbouring states during the Kisan agitation that was joined by farmers from Haryana too. However, the farmers in the two states now understand the design of the political parties to milk this issue.

The issue should be to provide water to Haryana, not necessarily through SYL Canal. It can be done through water harvesting. Haryana can be supplied Ganga waters too.

Punjab CM yesterday raised the issue of share from Yamuna that used to be Riparian to Punjab till 1966 but was never made part of the river waters apportionment. Political parties in Punjab including the Akali Dal have been taking up this issue of share from Yamuna.

However, the basic approach needs to change and the issue should be taken out of the realm of politics.