This month the Supreme Court is going to consider the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act (2004), the matter of control over head-works in Punjab and the issue of the Hansi-Butana canal. All these refer to the ongoing disputes between the states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan over the sharing of river waters. It is not as if there is a shortage of water supply. Even conservative estimates suggest that the Ravi-Beas system has 14.37 MAF of water which, if used judiciously, is adequate for the needs of these three states.

What is needed to manage these resources well is some kind of institutional mechanism, which we lack as of now. The various versions of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, have only created recriminatory conflicts between states. This act has resulted in great difficulties vis a vis the states evolving a consensus on what is appropriate sharing between them. Once such a consensus does get evolved, they routinely renege on it, much as Punjab and Karnataka have done. Approaching the courts as a last resort, despite Article 262 of the Constitution empowering Parliament to make such disputes non-justiciable, has often resulted in courts refusing to adjudicate in a timely manner. The search for a wise solution, when extended unnecessarily, is most unwise.

On balance, the government of India has no hesitation in appropriating the resources of both private individuals and various states with little thought to notions of natural justice and fair play. Yet where water resources are concerned, it prefers to merely wring its hands and bemoan its helplessness. It consistently refuses to intervene in the matter, saying that this is a conflict between states that the provincial governments will have to resolve and where the central government can only play an advisory role. Similar tactics were employed in the not so distant past by the British colonial government over conflicts between various groups in India. Does not the current method of the government of India in respect of water resources too smack of the policy of divide et impera?

... contd.