The crisis over water sharing between Punjab and Haryana can have serious institutional implications. By stubbornly deciding not to proceed with the construction of the Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal and return the land acquired for this purpose to the State’s farmers, the Punjab government has openly flouted the Supreme Court’s orders issued only earlier this month. On November 10, the apex court struck down the Punjab Termination of Water Agreements Act, 2004, under which the State government sought to turn its back on all earlier water sharing formulas, which included those arrived at after mediation by two prime ministers (Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi) and the Eradi tribunal award in 1987. The State has decided to brazen it out, no doubt with the upcoming Assembly elections in mind, with major political parties playing the game — but such cynical politics can lead to a total institutional breakdown. The apex court has rightly said that “the State Governments having entered into agreements among themselves on the intervention of the Prime Minister… cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the agreements arrived at between themselves.” Punjab is not the only State to have so defied the apex court. In 1991, Karnataka had sought to disregard an interim award of the Cauvery tribunal by passing an ordinance, but the apex court observed that a State cannot pass laws that militate against the interests of other States. This September, Karnataka convened an all-party meeting to decide whether to abide by an apex order on release of 6,000 cusecs/second a day for a week — but here, a stand-off was averted as the court reduced the water to be released.
This is not to argue that the courts and their verdicts are always above reproach. With respect to both Punjab (Ravi-Beas) and Karnataka (Cauvery), the apex court has taken too long to decide. The court’s ruling on Punjab this month was on a Presidential reference made 12 years ago. The Supreme Court has yet to dispose of petitions by both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu against the 2007 Cauvery tribunal award. Such delays can push States to take the law into their hands. Even so, the court’s reluctance to slap a contempt charge on Punjab, for repeated disregard for its orders on SYL, is hard to understand. Punjab must redress its grievances over water sharing in court, rather than through cynical street politics.
The political class should act responsibly on matters of water sharing, given its impact on our federal structure as the balance of power between the three arms of the State. This is all the more because water is likely to become a major cause for conflicts, within and between nations.