M A I L B A G

Water dispute: tribunal no solution

The editorial “Partners in progress” (Oct 27) rightly says: “Yet another tribunal is not going to come up with a magical formula acceptable to all. It will be much better if all of them resolve to settle the issue through talks among themselves.”

If the Indus Waters Treaty could be brought out between India and Pakistan, though after protracted negotiations for a long time, under the aegis of the World Bank, why can’t the river waters dispute among states within Indian Union itself be resolved by mutual talks? Of course, we have to take into account the changed hydrological conditions and assess the quantum of water of the rivers ab initio.

Let a committee of experts with technical and legal background from each state, headed by a neutral expert from the Central Water Commission be constituted to settle the issue in a just and fair manner.

G.R. KALRA, Chandigarh

II

Yes, it would be better if the states resolve to sort out the water dispute. The solution can be obtained by pooling up the available water resources and evolving better water management techniques for best returns for each drop of water available.

In the case of Punjab and Haryana, even after the Termination of the Agreement Act, the difference in quantity of water is 1.75 MAF or less. Rajasthan is in no position to utilise the allocated volume of 8.6 MAF, because ground data reveal that the Indira Gandhi Canal (Stage II) is yet to be completed. It is not known when Stage I and Stage II of this canal would completed.

Thus, there is tremendous scope for better management of the available water resources. We don’t need an outside agency like the World Bank or Israeli consultants to show us the way.

Dr G.S. DHILLON, Chandigarh

III

Quid pro quo or give and take holds the key to regional development. Whenever our politicians meet, they agree to disagree (except for their selfish motives). That is why, there is a general impression that forums such as the North Zone Council are always considered as forums to eat and chatter without striving for any significant policy decision for mutual benefit.

C.R. JINDAL, Chandigarh

Judiciary offers ray of hope In his article “Maintaining judicial decorum” (Oct 17), Justice Rajinder Sachar makes some meaningful observations. He cautions his friends against the vanishing values of the judicial system. By and large, the legislature and the executive are already under scrutiny for this erosion. Luckily, the judiciary has survived this onslaught. This offers a ray of hope to the common man. In spite of the unusual delay, money involved and the technicalities in dispensing justice, the judiciary still commands the people’s confidence. Professional ethics, impartiality, integrity and sensitivity sustain hope for the survival of the world’s largest democracy. While we are committed to pluralism based on individual freedom, rule of law and free and fair elections, the judiciary is the best guarantee to protect the values enshrined in the Constitution. SHANTI SWAROOP SHARMA, Dharamsala (HP)

Railway accidents

This has reference to the editorial “The deaths in Nalgonda: Railways must own blame” (Nov 1). There is need to punish the employees and the officers responsible for train accidents. The punishment must be severe enough to act as a deterrent because human error is said to be the main cause of most train accidents.

The Nalgonda accident could have been avoided had the Gangman or Patrolman and section officers like the Section Engineer (Permanent Way) had patrolled the track in the night. Showing lip-sympathy or awarding compensation to the next of the kin is not enough. The Railway Minister should step down, owning moral responsibility for the accident and the General Manager of the South Central Railway must be demoted.

SHER SINGH, Ludhiana

Saddam’s trial

The majesty of law is tested only when the rival parties are much too unequal as Bush the Victor and Saddam the vanquished. Add to these already tilting scales, the murder of Saddam’s lawyer. Add also the remarks of a judge on the Bench that the witnesses are too scared to depose.

A more depressing scenario is difficult to imagine. And if Saddam is entitled to a fair trial, which he undoubtedly is, then the trial must be held in a neutral country where the independence and security of the judges, lawyers and witnesses can be ensured. Otherwise, the farce will become more farcical.

RAM SARAN BHATIA, Faridabad