SYL Canal row: Centre can’t be mute spectator

Politics, not economics, behind row between Punjab, Haryana

Punjab government’s assertion not to allow construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal and that it didn’t have a single drop of water to spare is a shrewd move, indeed. With an eye on the Assembly elections early next year, the ruling SAD-BJP has reached out emotionally to its electorate already. And it got the Assembly to unanimously adopt a resolution against construction of the Canal a project under consideration ever since independence. “I would rather shed every drop of my blood than allow any drop of Punjab’s river waters to flow out,” had stated Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal.

Clearly, sharing river water between States is a contentious political issue capable of raising emotions to the highest pitch. And, the resolution was a reaction of the Punjab government to the Supreme Court order issued a day earlier to maintain status quo on the SYL Canal. Haryana Chief Minister described this as “gross violation” of the SC order.

A disturbing development followed adding more political flavour to the conflict. Marches and counter marches by groups of MLAs from Haryana and Punjab for and against the SYL canal were reported. The development is in sharp contrast to the rather friendly inter-State understanding that existed in the 1970s and 1980s which encouraged the plan for linking the Sutlej and Yamuna rivers. In fact, considerable spade work on the canal project had been completed by the year 2000.

However, in 2004, the Congress-led Punjab government adopted a “historic” resolution in the Assembly calling for Termination of Agreements Act which unilaterally cancelled all agreements between Punjab and neighbouring States regarding sharing of Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi river water. This was a turning point which decisively rejected government concurrence with the utility of construction of SYL canal.

The canal project was virtually sealed in 2016 by the Punjab government by passing a bill Punjab Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Land (Transfer of Proprietary Rights) Bill which provided for return of about 5,400 acres of land, which were acquired for the construction of the canal, to the owners. Even work on refilling the land was commenced immediately. Funds received from Haryana for the project are being returned.

The change over the years is more to do with politics than development economics. It seems that radical Sikh organisations are inclined to claim credit for genuine interest in protecting natural endowments and protecting and promoting agriculture. For them, both the Congress and the SAD had harmed the interests of Punjab. A new entrant in SYL politics is the Aam Aadmi Party subjected to attack by both the Congress and the SAD for speaking both in favour of Punjab and Haryana.

A contrasting picture is provided by Telangana and Andhra Pradesh smoothly coming together to link Godavari and Krishna as a new year gift to the people of the two States. Both have agreed to set up an Inter-State Water Board on Godavari projects thus ending decades-old discord on the utilisation of Godavari water. It is indeed a model for indispensable political will for inter-State cooperation for development and welfare.

A common tendency among water endowed States in India is to resort to legal course and assert their rights as upper riparian States refusing to consider the needs of downstream States also depending on the same river water. The fact that State borders are drawn as mere administrative arrangement is forgotten.

Under the Constitution, water, that is, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power, is a State subject under entry 17. However, this is subject to Entry 56 of Union List which authorises Parliament to enact laws for the regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys.

Further, the Sarkaria Commission on Union-State Relations has also recommended that Parliament could enact laws to regulate the beneficial use and distribution of inter-state river waters between States. The National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan also expressed similar view some 16 years ago. Without amendment of the Constitution, it is difficult for the Union government to intervene and take a firm stand even in the interests of non-partisan and over-all development. The result is resort to courts and tribunals and life-long continuation of litigations.

The Finance Minister’s advice at this juncture to Punjab and Haryana governments to sort out the canal issue and all water issues among themselves is perhaps the most appropriate political and legal course for the Central government. The disputants have to adopt a non-political approach something even common citizens in India cannot, steeped as they are in day-to-day politics of political parties. However, the Central government cannot remain a mute spectator. Water sharing is one of the most urgent public policy programmes in the 21st century.

Water is not a commercial product. It is a natural endowment which must be protected, defended, and shared. Mismatch between administrative boundaries and river basins cannot be allowed to create political animosities or obstructions to national growth and development. Therefore, the Union government has to assume a more positive role that is also more national and less party-oriented. Necessary amendments in the Constitution must be made. The bogey of State autonomy has to be dealt with by setting up proper institutional machinery to foster cooperation.