The land of rivers and still short of water
Nirmal Singh
The sharing of river waters has been a contentious issue between states, which have a greater say than the Centre in the management of this resource. The apex court itself has stated: “A greater element of mutuality and consensus needs to be built between the states and the Centre on the one hand, and the states inter-se on the other…”. Before executing the proposal, it should be kept in mind that the benefits to one state should not cost any other state. For example, Punjab is not only facing acute shortage of water but by “plundering”, the water of the state has been given to Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi.
The old Punjab derives its name from the presence of Sutlej, Beas, Ravi, Chenab and Jhelum — the five rivers that run through its territory. All these five rivers join the Indus. At the time of the Partition in 1947, Chenab and Jhelum remained in Pakistan Punjab and the remaining three rivers ran both in the Indian and the Pakistan Punjab. While the Indian Punjab ceases to be co-riparian regarding Chenab and Jhelum, it continues to be co-riparian in relation to the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi. Before Partition, Punjab had a canal system which drew waters from these three co-riparian Punjab rivers. Indian Punjab being upper riparian, during the first year after Partition, it more than once virtually stopped, to the detriment of Pakistan agriculture, water supply to the canal system of Pakistan, which was fed from these rivers. Hence arose the dispute between Pakistan Punjab and Indian Punjab.
To settle the dispute, the government of Pakistan Punjab sent two chief engineers to Shimla to negotiate a new agreement. The new agreement, (valid upto October 1948), was signed on April 18, 1948. Subsequently, an agreement more or less along similar lines was signed between the two Dominion governments on May 4, 1948 at New Delhi.
Finally, the dispute was resolved at the international level with the decision that the waters of the three rivers, Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, came into the share of the Indian Punjab and the waters of the other three rivers went entirely to the Pakistan Punjab.
In 1954, while the Indus water dispute was still continuing, the Indian representative, Mr Gulati, in order to make an argument before the Commission about the proposed utilisation of waters of the Punjab rivers, required the Centre hastily to draw a project showing utilisation of the waters of these rivers in Punjab and Rajasthan. Accordingly, the Centre called an officer-level meeting to frame and submit a project for utilisation of 8.0 MAF in Rajasthan. This was done for the consumption of the Indus Water Commission. This was later made the basis for draining the bulk of Punjab waters to Rajasthan. The allocation in that officer-level meeting was not in pursuance of any decision by the Punjab ministry, government, or the legislature, nor was an early post facto endorsement of this allocation sought. The Doctrine of Royalty was in vogue during the nineteenth century in British India and it continued up to 1947. In 1868, in the case of Sirhind Canal, which takes off from river Sutlej at Ropar, the riparian rights of British Punjab were acknowledged and the claim for supply of irrigation waters to the erstwhile State of Patiala and other princely states was accepted not as a “matter of right”, but as a matter of favour “subject to payment of seigniorage charge or royalty to British Punjab.” Even the state of Patiala used to get a seigniorage charge from the British for the supply of water from the river Ghaggar to the cantonment of Ambala.
In 1920, the supremacy of the riparian principle was accepted again when the erstwhile princely state of Bikaner, located in non-basin area of the Sutlej, was allowed to share Sutlej waters by constructing the Gang canal, taking off from the left bank of the river at Hussainiwala headworks. The claim of Bikaner state was allowed, subject to the condition of payment of seigniorage charge or royalty to the British Punjab at the rate of one-tenth of the average water rate prevailing in British Punjab.
Surprisingly, in 1956, this payment of royalty to Punjab by Rajasthan, the successor state of the erstwhile Bikaner state, was discontinued in an arbitrary manner without consulting Punjab. This was in violation of the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of law and the Constitution of India. The state of Punjab, in its capacity as a successor state of the pre-1966 state of Punjab, must demand the payment of seigniorage from the state of Rajasthan, with retrospective effect from 1956, when it was illegally discontinued. Water worth Rs 80,000 crore has flown into Rajasthan and that worth Rs 50,000 crore has flown into Haryana. These calculations are based on the cost incurred by farmers of Punjab in sourcing water from underground reservoirs.
To sustain agriculture, Punjab has adopted other methods, that is, tubewells and submersible pumps. There are approximately 22 lakh tube wells in Punjab, leading to the over-exploitation of groundwater that has been depleting by almost 1 metre (average) every year. Due to the decisions of the Centre, farmers in Punjab are suffering and have to bear the cost of installing tube wells. Depletion of the underground water table is forcing them to shell out lakhs to replace pumps with bigger motors to draw water from deeper sources, making sustainable agriculture a distant dream.
Punjab, the major riparian state, has a limited share in its three perennial rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi). It has been allocated only 1.795 million HaM (14.54 MAF), out of a total average availability of 4.24 million HaM (34.34 MAF). Continuous growth in population, sowing of high-water consuming and high-yielding cash crops and expansion of economic activities has increased demands of water for diverse purposes, causing a great stress on available water resources in the state. Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi are non-riparian states, and do not possess any right to use the river water of Punjab but since the water has already been allocated in a wrongful way, Punjab deserves to be compensated in the form of payment of “royalty” for the use of water by non-riparian states. Especially, when the riparian state itself is forced to exploit its groundwater resource. If the Punjab water is not allowed to flow into Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi, the state will have sufficient water for its consumption. With the canal system, there would be no need to over-exploit underground water. Electricity used for pumping of groundwater can be utilised by the industry, thereby reducing the burden of subsidy. Spare electricity can be supplied at the cheapest rates in the country. Punjab, would, ultimately, become financially self-sufficient and would not need go to the Centre with a begging bowl.
— The writer, a retired judge, is the MLA, Bassi Pathana
