Chandigarh, January 5
Emotions are stirred up in Punjab and Haryana as the time limit of one year set by the Supreme Court to complete and commission the SYL canal expires on January 15.

Though most emotions are politically stirred, the legal and constitutional aspects of the contentious issues involved can not be ignored. While Haryana is understandably pro-active, Punjab, too, is now ready with three sets of petitions, two civil suits and one curative, waiting final vetting by Mr F.S. Nariman next week.

Why the delay in filing the petition(s)? The official explanation is “it is a tactical decision”! Fingers have also been pointed at the Congress Government for its belated decision to convene an all-party meeting on the issue. The moot question is not who all will attend or boycott it on January 8. The question is will participating political parties and their representatives ever rise above parochial politics and think of Punjab?

It must be emphasised that both the Congress and the Akalis should be apportioned the blame for all controversies over the sharing of river waters and the construction of the 306-km SYL canal that has claimed human lives and Rs 850 crore of tax-payers’ money.

If Mr Darbara Singh (Congress) succumbed to pressures from then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and withdrew the petition from the Supreme Court in 1982, Akali Chief Minister S S Barnala also blundered by agreeing to refer the matter to a “tribunal” when the Rajiv-Longowal Punjab Accord was signed in 1985. In fact, Punjab should not have agreed to refer the matter to a tribunal because Haryana and Rajasthan are not riparian states.

It is now revealed that prior to this, some attempts were also made to resolve the water sharing and SYL issues during President’s rule when Gen. O.P. Malhotra (retd) was the Governor. But when the then Advocate-General, Mr H.S. Mattewal, was asked to give his opinion, he argued that such decisions should be left to politically elected governments.

As per the accord, it also meant the insertion of a new clause, Section 14, in the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. It is reported that the when the Centre sought Punjab’s opinion on this the then Advocate-General, Mr G.S. Grewal, had first opposed it, saying that it was ultra vires of Article 262 of the Constitution but later he reportedly changed his opinion.

In fact, similar views were expressed by Punjabi University Vice-Chancellor, S.S. Boparai at a seminar on “Punjab Waters—SYL” organised by the Institute of Sikh Studies here in November last year Mr Boparai was then Secretary, Irrigation.

For the Congress and the Akalis it is a pastime to engage in blame game. The Congress blames the Akalis Mr Parkash Singh Badal — for accepting Rs 1 crore from the late Mr Devi Lal to start digging for the SYL canal. The Akalis have also produced old correspondence to assert that Rs 1 crore was paid to then Chief Minister Zail Singh by his Haryana counterpart, Mr Banarsi Das Gupta.

Mr Gupta in his letter of September 9, 1976, wrote: “I am directing my Irrigation Department to place a sum of Rs 1 crore for the time being at the disposal of the Punjab Government so that the necessary organisation is set up and work started. The procedure for the transfer of further money required for the construction can be finalised by officers of the two states after mutual discussion”.

Giani Zail Singh in his reply on September 26 said, ‘’You will kindly appreciate that some work of investigation is necessary before actual construction at site and if you agree, we can put staff in position to take up this work in hand immediately and meet the expenditure out of the amount of Rs 1 crore so kindly offered by you”.

Thus as both states prepare for yet another legal battle in the apex court, the respective Chief Ministers are busy working out political strategies. For this both Om Parkash Chautala and Capt. Amarinder Singh have convened all-party meetings. If the Congress under Chaudhary Bhajan Lal has taken a strident stand in Haryana to boycott the all-party meeting, the Akalis will take a decision after a Political Affairs Committee meeting on January 7.

Politics aside, most of what the three sets of petitions prepared now contain has its basis in the suit filed earlier in 1998 on which the Supreme Court passed its order on January 15, 2002. There are similarities between the two petitions on the issues involved even as some new aspects have been included. Still one finds fingers being pointed at Mr Parkash Singh Badal and the way the petition was handled in the Supreme Court.