Supreme Court must be told that 70 per cent of water from Punjab rivers is already flowing to Rajasthan and Haryana, demand for SYL Canal is extra

 

Supreme Court must know SYL Canal is politics for Haryana, survival for Punjab

Ground Zero

Jagtar Singh

“We are concerned over the execution of a decree for the construction of the canal in the Punjab portion…The decree stands…Something would have to be done”.

This is the stand of the Supreme Court relating to construction of  portion of Satluj Yamuna Link Canal that is to carry water to Haryana from rivers in Punjab. The apex court issued the direction while hearing this decades old case on October 4 last.

The Supreme Court symbolizes sovereignty of the state and hence every decree is supposed to be implemented and rightly so. The state functions under a system.

However, the approach to certain issues that directly concern the survival issues just can’t be mechanical. The Supreme Court must take into account certain basic issues.

At the same time, it is the responsibility of the states concerned to apprise the apex court of the grassroots reality rather than creating perception of politicization of this essentially a survival issue for the farmers in Punjab. Punjab’s economy is agriculture based.

It is the responsibility of the law officers (Lawyers) to properly plead the case. This is possible only if the lawyer representing the case is briefed properly by the state government.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi told the court that apart from certain other issues, there was pressure from farmers and political opposition from within the state against completion of construction of this career channel that is carry waters from Punjab rivers to Haryana on the basis of the 1976 allocation made by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that was biased even on the scale of natural justice. Such arguments dilutes Punjab’s case. Dwivedi should have been properly brief by the Punjab bureaucrats and the Advocate General.

Here are two basic issues for consideration of the Supreme Court.

Punjab is the only state in the country 70 per cent of whose river waters are already flowing to Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. This was so on November 1, 1966 when Haryana was created under the Punjab Re-organisation Act by partitioning Punjab.

Can the Supreme Court locate such situation in any other region of the country? Rajasthan is not  co-riparian to three rivers flowing through Punjab. All these three rivers enter Pakistani Punjab, the once land of the five rivers.

The irony is that the politicians in Punjab continue to parrot since decades that “not a drop of water” would be shared with any other states when 70 per cent of the water from three rivers is flowing out since decades. They are misleading the people. This stand is ridiculous and create wrong perception in the country. These politicians and the Punjab government must tell the country that 70 per cent of the flow in Punjab rivers is already being shared and it is over and above this share which would flow through the SYL Canal to Haryana.

Even now since October 4 when the Supreme Court asserted that the decree has to be carried out, the politicians in Punjab continue to repeat the same lines.

There is another equally important dimension.

Only about 28 per cent of the irrigated area in Punjab is under canal irrigation while rest of the area being dependent on tube wells. Ground water level in Punjab has been going down drastically over the years and as per the official studies, this once the most fertile region in the country can turn into desert.

The Supreme Court must know that the situation is grim in Punjab. Moreover, this is the state where agriculture is highly intensive and totally mechanized, rather over-mechanized.

These two crucial dimensions must be brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by the lawyers representing Punjab.

 The issue is not that of opposition to the construction of the SYL Canal by the farmers and the political parties as was the stand taken by the state last week. Taking this line amounts to distortion of ground reality by the Punjab government itself.

The present share of Punjab in the three rivers flowing through it to Pakistan is just 30 per cent.

This is the crux of the matter. The Supreme Court want Punjab to further divert from this 30 per cent to Haryana through the SYL Canal. This approach violates every cannon of justice.

Then there is the oft repeated dimension of water flowing down to Pakistan.

The pattern of this flow is available with the authorities.

It is mainly during monsoon that water goes down to Pakistan.

Punjab faced floods this monsoon and several districts were badly hit.

The flood waters did not enter Haryana or Rajasthan but flowed down to Pakistan. The record would show this water flowing from Punjab to Pakistan.

Punjab too must share the blame.

Going by the recent reports, a large number of water channels have been encroached upon by the people. According to one report, missing from the record  are about record 17,000 water courses that link canal system to the field. A number of minors too have been taken over. The state government is just not bothered.

Free power to the tube wells has rather damaged Punjab in the long run and this awareness is now dawning upon the farmers.

Rather than making power free, farm sector should have been subsidized at some other level.

Moreover, this is not the only criminal neglect.

Punjab never focused upon creating more irrigation capacity since 1966 except the Kandi canal.

Haryana constructed even Hansi Butana Canal despite the fact that it continues to be dry. Haryana constructed SYL Canal in its territory decades back.

Both the Congress and the Akali Dal that have ruled the state till 2022 from time to time must share the blame.

At another level, it can be said while the Congress cheated Punjab on the sensitive issue of river waters, the Akali Dal is associated with betrayal.

The Solution

The issue is not that of the construction of SYL Canal  irrigating the parched fields in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.

Both Rajasthan and Haryana are non-riparian to Punjab rivers and as such, Punjab should have the first right over these rivers that flow into Pakistan. These rivers flowing into Pakistan too is an important dimension. However, Haryana is a successor state and Rajasthan has been part of Punjab canal network both before and after partition in 1947.

Without going into legalities with which the Supreme Court should have been concerned, the issue is that of water management.

The Centre  has already initiated schemes under water management and conservation at the national level. It is also pertinent to mention that the first right of the state through which the river passes has been getting diluted over the years and the proposal to interlink rivers negates that right.

First the Rajasthan case in the backdrop of water management although this state is not a party to the SYL Canal dispute.

One must take notice of the wastage of the Rajasthan Feeder water. This system takes off from Harike in Punjab and was started under the 1955 allocation in the run up to the signing of Indus Water Treaty, 1960 between India and Pakistan relating to the allocation of Punjab river waters.

Here is a study of Rajasthan Feeder: “ A comprehensive study by Mott MacDonald (a consultant agency for State Government of Rajasthan for Indira Gandhi Nahar project) indicated that in year 1995-96 around 10 per cent of Culturable Command Area (CCA) of Stage-I became waterlogged (water table within 0-1 meters from surface) and that potentially sensitive area (water table within 1-6 meters from surface (increased from 9% to 25% in 1990, and expressed the fear that by year 2000, extent of potentially sensitive area may go up to about 50% of the Stage-I, if no drainage solutions are provided for.” (Jagtar Singh: Rivers on Fire – Khalistan Struggle, Aakar, Delhi, 2000, p. 248).

Rajasthan Feeder is known as Indira Gandhi Nahar in the desert state. What a criminal wastage of precious water. The Supreme Court should order study on the ecological damage due to this poor water management in Rajasthan.

There is another aspect. Going by the international norms, water is used where its utilization per unit is the maximum. What would be cost of paddy cultivation in a field in some part of Haryana with the water carried by SYL Canal as compared to Punjab? The problem is that this cost of carrying water to distant places for irrigating the fields is not taken into account in the cost of production. The international norms recommend taking water to distant places through career channels for drinking purposes, not irrigation.

Would the Supreme Court order cost- benefit analysis of SYL Canal in this framework?

Lastly, Haryana has repeatedly stated on record that out of 3.5 MAF of its share for which SYL Canal is needed, the state has been drawing more than 1.60 MAF through the existing Bhakra system. Haryana needs this canal for remaining share of 1.88 MAF. This canal was designed for 3.5 MAF capacity.

Much more water than 1.88 MAF can be conserved by Haryana through modern technology and there already are central schemes for that.

Why should then tension be unnecessarily raised on this issue that has been witness to avoidable bloodshed in Punjab?

It may be mentioned that this construction of this canal was almost 85 per cent complete when the work stopped following gunning down of its chief engineer  M. L. Sekhri and superintending engineer Avtar Singh Aulakh on 23 July 1990 by members of the militant Babbar group led by Balwinder Singh Jatana. Name of Balwinder Jatana surfaced in the banned song ‘SYL’ of Sidhu Moosewala.

At the time when disaster awaits Punjab as the state can turn into desert going by the official studies, the Supreme Court should shift the narrative from implementation of then 2002 decree to complete construction of this canal in Punjab to water management and conservation.