NEW DELHI: The Narasimha Rao government appears inclined to disown some of the excesses committed by the Nehru dynasty in regard to Punjab’s river water and territorial matters although India is still not ready to accept Punjab’s riparian rights to its rivers or its claims to all Punjabi-speaking areas left out of the state.

Indicative of the Centers modified thinking of the matters is a note received by Delhi from the Beant Singh government of Punjab. The note marks a sharp departure from the traditional Congress (I) stand. It is a safe bet to state that chief minister Beant Singh could not have written it without a green signal from the center. The chief minister is totally dependent on Delhi not only because he belongs to the Congress (I) but also due to the fact that the Punjab government financially and politically leans heavily on the Indian government.

The chief minister’s detailed memorandum to the Prime Minister seeks immediate annulment of “all developments” on the Punjab water issue after November 1, 1966 viz the date of the reorganization of Punjab. In other words the chief minister wants an end to the 1976 notification of the government of India purporting to apportion the water of Punjab Rivers among Punjab Haryana Jammu and Kashmir Rajasthan and Delhi the 1981 inter-state water agreement among Punjab Haryana and Rajasthan and the provisions of the Rajiv Longowal accord governing Punjab’s rivers.

The memorandum also takes the territorial controversy back to the 1966 position when it seeks immediate transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab retention of Abohar and Fazilkain Punjab transfer of Mani Majra township now part of Chandigarh union territory to Haryana to compensate it for its claims to Chandigarh Abohar and Fazilka. In addition Punjab also expresses its willingness to transfer some of the villages of Rajpura tehsil (adjoining Naraingarh and Ambala district) to Haryana. The transfer of these villages could take place on the principle of contiguity of villages and 1991 as the base year for determination of the language spoken by the people.

Explaining the new Punjab stand chief minister Beant Singh wants Delhi to abide by the provisions of the Punjab Reorganization of the act. These provisions stipulate that the “surplus water” of the Sutlej and Beas shall be apportioned among the successor states of Punjab and Haryana Leaving the water of Ravi out of any such reckoning. (The Nehru dynasty however dragged the Ravi water too in the controversy and allowed a lion’s share to Haryana through the 1976 notification the 1981 “agreement” and the Rajiv Longowal Accord).

Attacking Mrs. Gandhis March 241976 “notification” (issued during the Emergency) Beant Singh says “The notification was totally against the letter and spirit of the Punjab Reorganization Act. It raised the apportion able quantum to 7.2 M.A.F from the actual figure of 1.24 M.A.F. and its implementation would have meant withdrawing canal water from such of the areas as were enjoying the benefit prior to the reorganization. However it did not consider the 5.58 M.A.F. water of the Yamuna which was erstwhile Punjab’s share and now fully given to Haryana. This was another injustice to Punjab.

“The unilateral notification was immediately contested and rebutted by Giani Zail Singh the then chief minister of Punjab. It led to further complications that is a filing of suit by the Punjab government in the Supreme Court: (b) withdrawal of the suit by the Punjab government presumably under pressure since the balance of justice in the court otherwise seemed to be moving in favor of Punjab at that time; (c) a new agreement of 1981 to which Rajasthan was also made a party though it had no claim because neither was it a riparian state nor a constituent of the erstwhile Punjab. This agreement was tailor-made to be more favorable to Haryana and Rajasthan at the cost of Punjab; (d) the Eradi Tribunal set up as a consequence of Rajiv-Longowal accord which crossed even the basic terms of its reference.”

The main weakness of Beant Singh’s prescription is that he does not rely on the constitutional and internationally accepted riparian principle on river water. He also does not seek to challenge the legality of the provisions of the Punjab Reorganization Act which Punjab had challenged in 1978 and in his own words the case was moving in favor of Punjab “at that time.”

Observers feel that the chief minister’s stand reflects a realistic appreciation of the state’s rights at least in part. This stand is certainly a big political rebuff to traditional Akalis who practically surrendered Punjab’s rights and interests in lieu of power for the party and money for individual Akalis through the Rajiv-Longowal accord. The new Punjab stand is likely to cause much heart-burning in Harayna.

All said and done the resolution of the two problems could pave the way for taking Punjab’s movement at a higher level. Eventually the real solution of the Punjab problem in the opinion of Sikhs is the creation of a separate independent state to be known as Khalistan.

Article extracted from this publication >> June 26, 1992