The ongoing political unrest in Punjab has been further stoked by the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal project, a contentious issue that dates back to the 1960s. The Chief Minister of Punjab has threatened that if forced to continue with the project, it could lead to more political turmoil in the state. This article will take a closer look at the history and implications of this dispute.
The Historical Context of the Issue
This conflict originates from the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 between India and Pakistan. The treaty permitted India to have ‘free and unrestricted use’ of Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers. However, the bifurcation of Haryana from Punjab in 1966 raised questions about Haryana’s share of river waters. This led to the planning of the SYL Canal to ensure Haryana received its rightful portion.
Punjab’s objection to the project was based on the riparian principle, which states that a river’s water belongs solely to the state or country it flows through. Despite the initial disagreement, both states agreed to re-allocate water in 1981. The construction of the 214-km SYL began in 1982 in Kapoori village, Punjab.
Disruptions and Delays in the Canal Project
The SYL project has seen a lot of opposition and delays. Protests and agitations escalated into violence and even assassinations. This created an environment of terrorism in Punjab and made the canal issue a concern of national security.
In 1996, Haryana approached the Supreme Court (SC) demanding that Punjab complete the work on the SYL. The SC directed Punjab twice, in 2002 and 2004, to finish the work. However, in 2004, Punjab Assembly passed the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, ending its water-sharing agreements and putting a halt to the SYL’s construction.
Legal Intervention and Punjab’s Continued Resistance
In 2016, the SC started hearings into a presidential reference concerning the legality of the 2004 Act. The court concluded that Punjab had reneged on its pledge to share river waters, thereby declaring the act as constitutionally invalid.
In 2020, the SC asked the Chief Ministers of both states to negotiate a solution for the SYL canal issue under the Centre’s mediation. Punjab requested a tribunal for a new, time-bound evaluation of water availability, arguing that there has been no adjudication or scientific assessment of river waters in the state till now.
The Cause of Punjab’s Reluctance
Punjab’s resistance is rooted in multiple factors. An alarming water crisis due to overuse of underground aquifers for wheat/paddy monoculture, is the primary concern. As per the Central Ground Water Authority’s report, almost 79% of Punjab’s underground water is over-exploited.
The state believes it has exhausted its precious groundwater resources to grow crops for the entire country and hence, should not be forced to share its waters while facing desertification threats. In addition, the resumption of canal construction may fuel feelings of discrimination among the state’s youth.
The Role of Article 143: Advisory Jurisdiction
Article 143 of the Indian Constitution authorizes the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of public importance. However, this is purely advisory and not binding on the President. The references made by the President are decided by a bench of at least five judges, and several crucial issues have been referred under this article.
A Path Towards Resolution
The resolution of this longstanding dispute requires tactful negotiation and understanding from all parties involved. Punjab needs to reconsider its stance in light of Haryana’s need for the canal. Moreover, safeguards must be put in place to mitigate potential political upheaval.
The Centre must prioritize Punjab’s demand for a fresh tribunal to delve into the division of river waters. The key lies in not further complicating the issue, but in engaging all stakeholders in meaningful discourse that acknowledges each party’s concerns.