 |
|
The Ravi-Beas water dispute between Punjab and Haryana remains a contentious issue with far-reaching implications for both states. The conflict, rooted in historical agreements and exacerbated by increasing water demands, centers on the equitable sharing of surplus water from the Ravi and Beas rivers. Shiv Singh Rawat, former Superintending Engineer in Haryana’s Irrigation and Water Resources Department, provides critical insights into the legal complexities, political polarization, and institutional shortcomings that contribute to the ongoing deadlock. The crux of the matter lies in Haryana's demand for its rightful share of water, citing historical agreements, tribunal rulings, and Supreme Court verdicts. Punjab, on the other hand, argues that it lacks sufficient water due to rising demand and ecological degradation, hindering its ability to fulfill Haryana’s demands. The non-completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal, designed to facilitate water transfer to Haryana, is a major impediment. The legal and historical background of the dispute is intricate, tracing back to the post-Independence period. The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty granted India control over the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej), while Pakistan received the western rivers. Subsequent agreements and allocations, including those in 1955, 1966, 1976, and 1981, attempted to divide the Ravi-Beas water among Punjab, Rajasthan, and Jammu & Kashmir, and later Haryana after its creation in 1966. The 1981 agreement sought to adjust water sharing arrangements. The SYL Canal was proposed to facilitate the allocation outlined in the 1985 Punjab Accord. The Eradi Tribunal further solidified Haryana's share at 3.83 MAF and Punjab's at 5 MAF, emphasizing the essential nature of the SYL Canal for Haryana's access to its allocated water. However, Punjab halted canal construction in 1982 amidst political pressure, and in 2004, it passed legislation terminating all earlier water agreements. Although the Supreme Court declared this termination unconstitutional, implementation remains stalled, perpetuating the dispute. Haryana faces significant operational challenges in accessing the Ravi-Beas water due to the non-completion of the SYL Canal. The state currently relies on outdated infrastructure, such as the Bhakra Main Line and Narwana Canal, which suffer from siltation and wear and tear. Despite Supreme Court directives and tribunal rulings, Haryana's entitlement remains largely unfulfilled. As a result, Haryana receives only a fraction of its allocated share, leading to substantial water shortages. This shortfall severely impacts agriculture in the state's southern districts, leaving a considerable portion of farmland uncultivated and affecting agricultural output. The Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) plays a crucial role in managing the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects, regulating water release based on storage levels, snowmelt forecasts, and inflow data. The BBMB operates under the Ministry of Power and adheres to a two-season cycle: the depletion period (September 21-May 20) and the filling period (May 21-September 20). Monthly technical committee meetings, chaired by the BBMB chairman and attended by state officials, determine allocations based on critical levels. The BBMB's actions during the April-May 2025 dispute were controversial, as it cut Haryana's allocation from 8,500 to 4,000 cusecs, citing low reservoir levels. This decision sparked strong protests from Haryana, which argued that its representative (Member of Irrigation) had not been appointed, weakening its influence in BBMB decisions. Accusations of bias towards Punjab surfaced, though the BBMB defended its actions as technically sound. The broader implications of the unresolved dispute are significant, encompassing socio-economic, environmental, and political dimensions. Farmers in Haryana's Kaithal, Jind, Hisar, Fatehabad, and Sirsa districts face severe irrigation shortages, while Punjab fears that further losses may worsen its groundwater crisis. The issue has polarized both states politically, escalating public tensions. Environmentally, poor coordination leads to unutilized monsoon water flowing into Pakistan and excessive groundwater extraction on both sides. Governance suffers from institutional gaps, including BBMB vacancies and outdated tribunal assessments. The resolution of the Ravi-Beas water dispute requires a multifaceted approach. The most critical step is the completion of the SYL Canal, which would enable Haryana to access its allocated share of water. In addition, alternative water transport systems, irrigation efficiency upgrades, crop diversification, water conservation, and groundwater monitoring must be prioritized. The central government must facilitate sustained inter-state dialogue and promote confidence-building measures to foster cooperation. A long-term political consensus, prioritizing the needs of the people and environment over short-term electoral gains, is essential for achieving a lasting and equitable solution.
The Ravi-Beas water dispute is not merely a matter of water allocation; it's a complex interplay of historical agreements, legal battles, political maneuvering, and environmental concerns. The failure to resolve this dispute has far-reaching consequences, impacting agriculture, livelihoods, and regional stability. Haryana's reliance on outdated infrastructure and its inability to access its rightful share of water severely hamper its agricultural productivity and exacerbate water scarcity in its southern districts. The non-completion of the SYL Canal, a project intended to address this inequity, stands as a symbol of the entrenched political obstacles that impede progress. Punjab's concerns about its own water scarcity and ecological degradation are also valid and must be addressed in any resolution. The BBMB, as the entity responsible for managing the water resources, faces a challenging task in balancing the competing demands of the two states. Its decisions are often subject to political scrutiny and accusations of bias, highlighting the sensitivity of the issue. The lack of a permanent resolution to the Ravi-Beas water dispute perpetuates a cycle of mistrust and recrimination between Punjab and Haryana, hindering cooperation on other vital issues. The political polarization surrounding the issue makes it difficult to find common ground and compromises, further delaying progress. The environmental consequences of the dispute are also significant. The inefficient use of water leads to excessive groundwater extraction, depleting aquifers and contributing to land degradation. The loss of valuable water resources to Pakistan, due to the lack of infrastructure to store and utilize them, is another concerning aspect. The need for a comprehensive and sustainable solution to the Ravi-Beas water dispute is urgent. This requires a collaborative approach, involving both states and the central government, to address the underlying issues and find a mutually acceptable way forward. The completion of the SYL Canal, while a critical step, is not the only solution. Other measures, such as improving irrigation efficiency, promoting water conservation, and diversifying crops, are also essential. A long-term political consensus, based on sound scientific data and a commitment to fairness and equity, is crucial for achieving a lasting resolution. The Ravi-Beas water dispute serves as a reminder of the challenges involved in managing shared water resources in a context of increasing demand and environmental pressures. It also underscores the importance of political will and cooperation in finding solutions that benefit all stakeholders.
The dispute's origins are deeply entrenched in the history of post-independence India, with successive attempts to allocate the waters of the Ravi and Beas rivers between various states. The initial allocation in 1955, followed by further adjustments after the creation of Haryana in 1966, laid the foundation for the current conflict. The 1981 agreement and the 1985 Punjab Accord represented attempts to find a lasting solution, but these efforts were ultimately unsuccessful due to political opposition and legal challenges. The Eradi Tribunal's decision to fix Haryana's share at 3.83 MAF and Punjab's at 5 MAF, and its emphasis on the SYL Canal as essential for Haryana, further underscored the need for a comprehensive resolution. However, the non-completion of the SYL Canal has become a major point of contention, with Punjab halting construction in 1982 and later attempting to terminate all earlier water agreements in 2004. The Supreme Court's declaration that this termination was unconstitutional has not resolved the issue, and the dispute continues to fester. Haryana's reliance on outdated infrastructure, such as the Bhakra Main Line and Narwana Canal, exacerbates its water scarcity problems. These canals are prone to siltation and wear and tear, reducing their capacity to deliver water efficiently. The state's inability to access its allocated share of water has significant economic and social consequences, particularly in its southern districts, where agriculture is heavily dependent on irrigation. The BBMB's role in managing the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects is crucial, but its decisions are often controversial and subject to political pressure. The board's actions during the April-May 2025 dispute, when it cut Haryana's allocation due to low reservoir levels, sparked strong protests from Haryana and accusations of bias towards Punjab. The lack of a permanent representative from Haryana on the BBMB further undermines the state's ability to advocate for its interests. The broader implications of the Ravi-Beas water dispute extend beyond the immediate impact on agriculture and livelihoods. The dispute has contributed to political polarization between Punjab and Haryana, hindering cooperation on other issues. It has also led to environmental degradation, with excessive groundwater extraction depleting aquifers and contributing to land subsidence. The failure to find a sustainable solution to the dispute has undermined public trust in government institutions and fueled social unrest. A comprehensive and sustainable solution to the Ravi-Beas water dispute requires a multifaceted approach, encompassing legal, political, economic, and environmental considerations. The completion of the SYL Canal is a critical step, but it must be accompanied by other measures, such as improving irrigation efficiency, promoting water conservation, and diversifying crops. The central government must play a leading role in facilitating dialogue and cooperation between Punjab and Haryana, and in ensuring that any resolution is fair, equitable, and sustainable. A long-term political consensus, based on sound scientific data and a commitment to the common good, is essential for achieving a lasting peace and prosperity in the region.
Source: ‘Completion of SYL Canal essential to resolve water dispute between Punjab and Haryana’