The new state being basically handicapped, an agitation for redressal of the grievances started soon after 1966, because it was anticipated that its future under the created discriminations would be ruinous for the people. The salient demands of this agitation were as follows:
(a) Satluj, Ravi and Beas, being purely Punjab rivers, and their waters and hydel power being very essential for the economy of the State, no water or hydel power should he allotted to riparian states like Rajasthan, Haryana or Delhi, because such an allocation would he unconstitutional. The issue could, therefore, be referred to the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. In no other state at the time of reorganization, the provisions of the Constitution had been violated to deprive it of its wealth of water and hydel power as in Punjab.
(b) The boundaries that had been accepted by all concerned including the people and the legislators, should not be disturbed to deprive the new state of known Punjabi speaking areas, through Centrally appointed Commissions.
(c) The Central Government order that recruitment to Defence Services Should be based on the population of a state, was unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, which state that in the matter of recruitment to Public Services no distinction could be made on the basis of place of birth of an individual. The object of this order could evidently be to reduce the strength of the Sikhs, which was originally about20 %, to about 2%., which was to be the share of Punjab on the basis of its population during future recruitment to Defence Forces, Actually the strength of the Sikhs in the Defence Forces had already been reduced to about 8%, and the Sikhs apprehended that the new policy would further reduce their strength to 2%, or less. This unconstitutional policy of the Government has been a major cause for distress in the rural areas of the Punjab. As lakhs of families were dependent on the profession of soldiery for their livelihood, and since the percentage of the Sikh soldiers in the Army became increasingly reduced, this caused serious economic dissatisfaction among the youth in rural areas of Punjab, especially when they found that in other states candidates with lower physical fitness standards were accepted. As this policy related only to the Defence Services, where Sikhs, because of their tradition, aptitude and fines were eminently suitable for selection, it created a serious sense of discrimination against the policy of the Central Government.
(d) Even before Independence the keeping of Kirpan (sword) was accepted as a religiously prescribed wear for the Sikhs. Its wear by a Sikh has been guaranteed under the Law and the Indian Constitution. During British days there had been a specific agitation for this freedom. But now the Central Government issued an order placing restrictions on the carrying of Kirpan in certain situations. This order was considered violative of the Indian Consutution. Hence the demand was for withdrawal of the unconstitutional restrictions,
Apart from the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, which will be discussed separately, the above were the four major demands of the Sikhs after 1966, These demands were reasonable and legitimate, and since the Constitution provides a specific forum for their solution, the Government, if it intended, could have lawfully settled them without the least objection from any party or State. No one could say that the constructional issues should not be referred to the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, which was the body to give a verdict on them, and once the decision had been made, no party could raise any objection. So far as the territorial matter was concerned, the demand was equally valid, because it required that the borders that stood settled and accepted by the people of the areas, and the decision embodied in an Act Of Parliament, should not be arbitrarily altered through a Commission. But what could be settled in one day, has been made to linger on for decades, and the Central Government has consistently failed to follow the constitutional path or to maintain the status quo on a settled issue. Instead of giving the long history of the Akali agitation over the last about quarter of a century, we shall, for the sake of brevity, confine our discussion mainly to the two issues of river waters and the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. River Waters and Hydel Power Issues:
After Independence roughly 38 MAF of river waters fell to the share of East Punjab in India. Of these, about 32 MAF were carried by the three Punjab rivers, Satluj, Beas and Ravi, and the remaining 5.6 MAF were carried by the Jamuna in Haryana area of the Jamuna Basin, Excluding 5.6 MAF of Jamuna (only part of which was utilized in Haryana area of erstwhile Punjab), of the remaining over 32 MAF about 9 MAF were being utilized in the Punjabi Suba area, and one MAF was used in the Gang Canal for the Bikaner State, which shad an agreement with Punjab for a limited period, on payment of royalty to Punjab for the use of that water. In short, about 22 MAF of Punjab waters were still available for use of the State, Actually considerable part of the 22 MAF was being used in Pakistan area, before 1947.. But after partition these waters fell to the share of Indian Punjab.
The second essential point is that Punjab is short of water as Dr. Lowdermilk (13) has pointed out that sweet water is going to be a scarce commodity and a limit in factor in the development of are area or state in the coming century Agricultural experts have estimated that 5 to 6 acre feet of water are the annual requirements of an acre for growing two crops like wheat and paddy, the recommended rotation in the state, The cultivable area in Punjab being 105 lakh acres, the annual requirements of surface water comes to about 52.5 MAP, But the avail. able waters are only 32 MAF, of which about 0.6 MAF have to go to the co-riparian Jammu and Kashmir, In sum, Punjab is woefully deficient in the availability, of river waters to meet the requirements of its cultivated area. Here we should like to state two points:
First, we cannot for want of space give the entire history of the allotment of the river waters. We shall record only the result of the decisions made by the Central Government. Second, we shall give only approximate figures, because these have been marginally changed by different assessments and are still under controversy. The figures given will be the accepted data during the period before 1970.
The Re organisations Act has a provision that in case of any dispute between Punjab and Haryana regarding the Beas Project, the Centre would be the arbitrator. Apart from the provision being considered violative of the Constitution, it was really unnecessary, because the Beas Project had been framed and finalised long before 1966, and envisaged the allotment of only about 0.9 MAF to the Haryana area. Such projects are always drawn in great detail, including plans for utilization of water, channels, commanded area, and water to be supplied to each channel, disuibutory or water course. As such, the very provision in the Act was superfluous, except as a lever for its unwarranted use, as has been revealed later. After 1966 Haryana drew up a project, Satluj Yamuna Link Canal, which is supposed to carry 5 MAF of water from Punjab rivers, The Central Government approved of it. Punjab did not accept its validity, being a __ post Re organisations project and not a part of the Beas Project. Because of the dispute the Centre gave an award, and the final result broadly is that out of the 22 MAF, only about S MAF have been allotted to the Punjab, while 8 MAF go to Rajasthan and the remaining to Haryana. In short after 1947, about three fourths of the available waters have been allotted to non-riparian areas of Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. We shall briefly mention the three stages of this long controversy, The first stage is the arbitration award by the Prime Minister, Mrs, Indira Gandhi, in 1976 allotting, excluding flow of Satluj waters of the Bhakra Project, 3.5 MAF each to Delhi, leaving the remaining for Rajasthan which had been earlier earmarked under an executive order of the Centre. Following defeat of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in t 1977 elections an Akali-cum-J z Sangh Ministry was formed in the Punjab. After obtaining expert legal advice, they filed a case the Supreme Court questioning the award of the Prime Minister an the vires of the Punja Reorganization Act of 1966.
The third stage is that soon after Indira Gandhi returned to power at the Centre, she dismissed the Aka Ministry in Punjab, and later caller a meeting of the three Congress Chief Ministers of Rajasthan Haryana and Punjab, who signed an agreement virtually endorse in the earlier award, It gave 8.6 MA to Rajasthan, 3.5 MAF to Haryana 0.2 to Delhi, and 4.2 MAF only riparian Punjab. Following the agreement, the case pending before the Supreme Court was withdraw by the Punjab Government the Prime Minister Mrs. Gandhi laid the foundation of the SYI Canal. Thus a constitutional attempt to have a decision of this Supreme Court on the fundamental constitutional issue was frustrated, following executive agreements. The conclusion is incontrovertible that the diversion ’ Punjab’s water and hydel power resources to non riparian states has been done by the Centre by resort to extra-judicial measure: and by frustrating the constitutional process, which the Akali Ministry had sought to follow. It only shows that all through the Centre was aware that the allotment was not constitutional and the Supreme Court would no endorse the validity of the unconstitutional provisions of the Reorganization Act, 1966, an what it had decided regarding that allotment of Punjab waters and hydel power to non-riparian states Here, two other points need to be mentioned. There is a provision the Reorganization Act, that Hyder power from Punjab rivers will get to Haryana in proportion to the allotment of water. Second, the agreement of 1981 among the three States only related to water of Punjab Rivers. The constitutional issue about the provision concerning hydel power of these rivers was outside the scope of that agreement. Accordingly, it was still open to a future Punjab Government to raise before the Supreme Court the constitutional issue about the validity of the Reorganization Act concerning hydel power. As such, the entire Reorganization Act could be gone declared unconstitutional, thereby upsetting the apple cart of all allotments of water and hydel power to no riparian slates.
Without going into the history of such decisions regarding ‘the Narmada and other rivers waters in India, we shall quote only one decision made by a California Court (14) in February 1988: The case related 0 a petition by the Federal Government that its lands situated in California be allowed some irrigation from a stream if South California. Until then the private land owners on the basis of their riparian rights were not allowing the use of the river water to even government lands in the state. The Court decided that while the Federal lands might be allowed waters, the water use for state lands would be subordinated to the needs of the current water users in the State. This is to emphasize that not to speak of allowing water to non riparian states, the priority of private water users is so strong and. universal that until Feb. 1988 the private land owners were not allowing water to even government lands. This priority is evidently based on the principle that since. for centuries on end, it is the people of a state that suffer loss in property, land and life from the floods and vagaries of rivers, they alone in equity have the corresponding: right of having benefits from the waters or hydel power of those: streams.
In no democratic country in Europe, America or India is there a decision contrary to the riparian principle which is also embodied. in the Indian Constitution. One fact alone will show the equity of the riparian law. In 1988 the Punjab floods caused a havoc. The loss in erosion and silting of the land, damage to crops, houses, property and cattle, apart from the loss of scores of human lives, was estimated at over a billion Dollars (15) in that single year. Neither Rajasthan nor Haryana, nor Delhi suffered even a penny worth of loss or damage from Punjab rivers of which they had been made the principal beneficiaries. The above — highlights the contradiction and evident injustice that while niparj an Punjab continues to suffer such — damages, the non riparian states — reap each year benefits and production of over a billion dollars.
In India too there is a clear cut decision in the Narmada case (16) , saying that Rajasthan being a non-riparian state has no rights in its waters what so ever in that case Rajasthan itself pleaded’ that even though non riparian, it was getting Punjab waters, and on that analogy it should be allowed waters from the Narmada. But i was held that Rajasthan was non Tiparian vis-a-vis Punjab rivers and Punjab’s commitment to” Rajasthan was that i would supply water, only if it was surplus to its needs. This is to stress that Knowing full well all this and other Judicial decisions and rulings of the Indian Courts on the subject, the Central Government has consciously violated the ripain Principle, and when challenged, avoided a judicial verdict on this constitutional issue.
Article extracted from this publication >> Aug 7, 1992
