Punjab Governor Surinder Nath in a communication faxed to the Prime Minister staked the states claim to a share in the Yamuna waters on the grounds that the river belonged to the united Punjab. Haryana alone could not Jay claim to the Yamuna water, he argued.
“Nath is negotiating a proposal to refer the dispute about the apportionment of the Yamuna water among UP., Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan to a judicial tribunal. A controversy erupted among these states recently when the union minister for water resources called a conference of representatives of these states.
Amarinder Singh was the first 10 demand a share for Punjab in the Yamuna river. Nath echoed the demand and wrote to the Prime Minister. He said Punjab was entitled to 1.48 million acre-feet of, Yamuna river water on the basis of 60:40 ratio of distribution of civil servants between Punjab and Haryana in terms of the Punjab Reorganization Act. Nath said Punjab’s share of 1.48 MAF should be offset against Haryanasclaimof3.8 MAF from the Ravi Beas water.
Governor Nath in his recent statements also tried to project himself as a champion of Punjab’s interests. He stated that Chandigarh belonged to Punjab and that by is insistence on the issue the state was merely demanding a right and was not seeking alms,
“Those well versed with the issues do not view the Governors demand about the Yamuna river as something particularly favorable to Punjab. Naths statements can at best serve as rhetoric against Haryana extravagant claims on Punjab’s rivers, The demand can, in fact cause more harm than good to Punjab.
For, the basic issue in the Punjab river water controversy is the question of statutory ownership of the water of Sutlej, Beas and Ravi rivers. Does the water of the three Punjab rivers belong to the Indian government or entail to sit in Judgement on its apportionment among different states? This million dollar question is not being faced by traditional Punjab politicians for fear of annoying Delhi. This is also the of the present administration which consistently refused even to seek. a legal opinion from eminent Constitutional experts on the issue.
In all fairness, he government of India never categorically claimed to be the owner of the Punjab river water although it acted virtually as proprietor by calling meetings of states, ordering them about how to distribute the water and even issuing notifications as in 1976. The Punjab politicians never questioned the Indian governments unstated position of being proprietor of Punjab rivers. Even Akalis, in practice, accepted. the Indian governments ownership of the Punjab rivers and proceeded to raise secondary questions of quantity rather than the primary issue of New Delhi’s, standing to distribute the water. For instance, Parkash Singh Badal as recently as last month demanded a “just share” for Punjab in the Punjab’s river water instead of asking the Indian government to keep off Punjab’s rivers in terms of the present Indian constitution itself as well as international law.
Thus by ignoring this cardinal question of proprietor ship in terms of the Indian conclusion and encroachments by Delhi on the state’s power through the Punjab Reorganization Act (which entitled Delhi to constitute Bhakra Beas Management Board to manage irrigation and power projects, on Punjab’s rivers), the 1976 notification by Delhi, the 1981 “agreement” among Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan signed under the aegis of the late Indira Gandhi and the Rajiv Longowal accord of 1985, Governor Nath has tried to ignore these invalid and unconstitutional acts on the part of the Indian government and has created confusion on the issue.
It is obvious that Punjab’s claim to a part of Yamuna river is not supported by the constitution and Jaw just as Haryana’s claim to any part of Punjab rivers is unjust and illegal. By raising the demand for a share in the Yamuna river, Nath has only paved the way for anti. Punjab political settlement as in the past, rather than a jus, judicial adjudication through the Supreme Court in terms of the traditional Indian law.
Any pro Punjab Assembly will have to declare that the entire water of Sutlej, Beas and Ravi rivers belongs to Punjab. It has complete statutory right to divert any amount of water to its own channels from the canals now feeding Rajasthan and Haryana, The two neighboring states of Punjab are, of course, free to go to courts to challenge Punjab’s actions. It is thus unwise to make vague references to the Supreme Court as is pleaded by certain Punjab politicians. It is for the other claimants to knock at court doors. At present, even the release of water to Punjab’s canals is under the control of the Center run Bhakra Beas Management Board whose very existence is contrary (0 the Indian constitution and law.
As for the Yamuna rives, it passes through Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, U.P. and Rajasthan. The river is “interstate” among the four states, But no Punjab river is “interstate” except for between Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, Haryana or Rajasthan has absolutely no claim to any water of the three Punjab rivers. The Indian law does not admit or even “dispute” between Punjab and Haryana or between Punjab and Rajasthan, But the Rajiv Longowal accord accepted and lent legitimacy to the “dispute” between Punjab and Haryana on the Punjab rivers and was hailed by Akalis of all sorts as a great boon to Punjab, Some, including Mann, Badal and Tohra, are even favor of “implementation” of the anti Punjab Rajiv Longowal accord.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 31, 1992
