Is the biased Indian Supreme Court about to ambush the Punjab government on river water disputes and settle all of them in favor of Haryana & Rajasthan?

Wake up Punjab!



Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - In the coming week starting September 17 when this year’s North Western Monsoon will have ended (with Punjab having suffered a deficiency of 24 % in rainfall this year which will drop the underground water level even more) the captive people of the Sikh Homeland of Punjab, Khalistan, better be ready for a deep anti-Punjab water conspiracy which is brewing, in the fertile minds of the Brahmin-caste-dominated Indian Supreme Court and the rulers in Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan to steal a lot more of Punjab’s river waters which could end up making a desert out of Punjab.

The Supreme Court for some strange reason has suddenly woken up and noticed various long-standing water disputes (between water-short Punjab and neighboring non-riparian Hindu-majority states of Haryana and Rajasthan) which had been pigeon-holed for years. The biased Supreme Court has scheduled hearings on all of these disputes beginning next week. It is obvious the intent is to steal some more of water-short Punjab’s river water (stored in the Bhakra and Pong Dams) and deny it to the parched lands of its Sikh farmers with some legal hocus-pocus which the lazy and timid Badal government may not be able to counter. The picture looks bleak for the future generation of rural Punjabis if the Brahmanical conspiracy succeeds.

In an ominous coincidence three politically important cases, all pertaining to the decades-long on-going theft of Punjab’s river waters by Rajasthan and Haryana, which had been pigeon-holed over the years, (including the 2004 presidential reference on the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act-2004) have been listed for hearing in the Supreme Court for September 17 and 18, 2007.

The first case to be heard, on Monday 17 September, 2007, by the Supreme Court will be the claim of the non-riparian state of Rajasthan that three water regulatory headworks of the Bhakra and Beas projects (Ropar, Harike and Ferozepore headworks) be taken out of Punjab’s control and handed over to the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB). The readers may recall that on Monday May 02, 2005, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, (comprising Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma and Justice Karni Singh Rathore) issued an 'illegal' order on a petition filed by a former chief engineer of the Rajasthan Irrigation Department, D.M. Singhvi, a 72-year-old farmer, who had prayed for directions from the High Court so that, 'the share of residents of Rajasthan in river waters could be safeguarded through strict compliance of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966'. The Rajasthan High Court taking cognizance of Singhvi's Public Interest Litigation (PIL), said that, 'the water supply from the two projects, Bhakhra Nangal Project (BNP) and the Beas Project (BP) was to be controlled by the Bhakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB) according to Section 79 of the Punjab Re-Organization Act, 1966. But this had not been done and the Punjab government was still controlling the head-works of the two projects through a sub-committee of the BBMB'. The High court further ruled that, "Punjab does not have any right to keep control of head-works and to flout the mandate of Section 79. It is only the Bhakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB) that is entitled to keep administration and control of head-works in order to safeguard the fundamental right to water of the petitioner and other farmers of the state of Rajasthan." (See report in the Indian Express headlined, “Rajasthan High Court sets stage for fresh water row” by clicking at: > http://www.indianexpress.com/india-news/full_story.php?content_id=69674  <)

Punjab, represented by Senior Lawyer, A.K. Ganguly, had argued that the Rajasthan High Court had no jurisdiction for hearing water disputes and questioned the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by D. M. Singhvi. The Rajasthan High Court however, rejected the contention saying that, 'the PIL did not deal with any water dispute and as such it was maintainable. Since the petitioner and other similarly situated farmers of Rajasthan have a fundamental right to water, this court has to address the issue from humanitarian point of view'.  Rajasthan High Court brazenly ruled that the State of Punjab must hand over control of the Ferozepur, Harike and Ropar canal headworks - all three located in East Punjab territory - to the illegal Bhakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB). The court further directed the Central government in New Delhi to ensure compliance of its order within thirty days. However the Indian Supreme Court, in 2005, on an appeal from Punjab, had stayed the above order of the Rajasthan high court.

On Tuesday 18 September, 2007, a constitution bench of the Supreme court will hear the four point reference made to the Supreme Court by former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, way back on 22 July, 2004, about the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act-2004. Readers may recall that, that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act-2004 was passed unanimously by the Punjab state Assembly, and signed by the then Punjab Governor, on July 12, 2004. (See Khalistan Calling headlined, “ Punjab’s Finest Hour. Punjab Assembly unanimously passes the historic 'Punjab Termination of Agreements Bill, 2004', on July 12 which cancels ALL past unequal agreements about Ravi/Beas waters,” by clicking at: > http://khalistan-affairs.org/home/khalistancalling/2004/july14.aspx   <)  Under the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act-2004, Punjab had scrapped all unequal water accords with neighboring states from 1981 onwards as everyone knows how the issue of sharing river waters (remember the defunct SYL canal) had provided a catalyst to militancy in the state in the 1980s.  However, the magnanimous legislation under its’ section 5, did NOT interfere or stop, or reduce the current gratis (free of charge) siphoning of Punjab river waters which has been going on for decades for the benefit of non-riparian states of Haryana and Rajasthan. The very poorly drafted reference by the then President, A P J Abdul Kalam, reads as follows:- 1) Whether the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India; 2) Whether the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 and the Notification dated March 24, 1976 issued there-under. 3) Whether the State of Punjab has validly terminated the agreement dated December 31, 1981 and all other agreements relating to the Ravi-Beas waters and is discharged from its obligation under the said agreement(s); and 4) Whether in view of the provisions of the Act, the State of Punjab is discharged from its obligations flowing from the Judgment and Decree dated January 15, 2002 and the Judgment and Order dated June 4 of the Supreme Court.

As the river waters is a state subject, not a central subject, under the Indian constitution, (which document supersedes everything) a Chandigarh-based Punjab River Forum promptly raised some very valid points in a petition to the Indian President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, on July 29, 2004,  with regard to his above mentioned Presidential reference to the Supreme Court. The Punjab River Forum requested that the President ought to also seek the Supreme Court’s advice on the following points:-   1) Whether Sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act 1966 are in consonance with the provisions of the constitution and its effect on the government’s order of March 1976?    2) Whether the verbatim incorporation of a political deal in the Interstate River Water Disputes Act 1956 is in accord with the constitution. The 'political deal' mentioned in Point No. 2 above also questions the Interstate River Water Disputes Act 1956 and the 1985 Langowal-Rajiv Gandhi understanding between an Indian Prime minister and an illiterate private citizen, Sant Langowal; and, the unequal accord Prime minister Indira Gandhi forced an illiterate Punjab Chief minister Darbara Singh to sign with Haryana chief minister Bhajan Lal & Rajasthan Chief minister Shiv Charan Mathur on December 31, 1981. The Punjab government has already challenged sections 78 and 79 of the Reorganization of States Act, 1966 in the Supreme Court. The origin of water-sharing agreements/disputes involving riparian Punjab, and non-riparian states of  Haryana and Rajasthan are based on this act.

The Punjab government has, according to the Tribune newspaper, filed a suit on 19 August, 2007, in the Indian Supreme Court, challenging the legality of Sections 78 and 79 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 (passed by the Indian parliament) under which the erstwhile Bhakra Management Board (BMB) was established, on October 01, 1967, by the then rulers in Delhi, to supervise, among other things, the transfer of water-short Punjab’s river waters, from the Bhakra Nangal dam, to non-riparian states of Rajasthan and Haryana. (See report in the Tribune newspaper of Aug. 20, 2007, by its legal correspondent headlined, “Water Sharing; Punjab contests Reorganization Act provisions in Supreme Court,” by clicking at: > http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070820/nation.htm#1  <) Punjab has sought to strike down Sections 78 and 79 of the Act, dealing exclusively with the sharing of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej waters with Haryana and Rajasthan, claiming that these provisions are not only unconstitutional – River water being a state subject according to the constitution - but contrary to the previous accords on water sharing, right from the Independence of India Act, 1947 by way of which India’s right on these three rivers have been recognized. Something is very suspicious here as one would think that the Supreme Court would hear this application of Punjab before taking up the ridiculous demand of Rajasthan about control over Ropar, Harike and Ferozepore headworks located in the Punjab.

Another important case listed for hearing in the Supreme Court, for hearing in September 2007, along with the other two cases, is the matter of stopping Haryana from puncturing the Bhakra main line (BML) canal inside its territory. In July 2007 the Punjab government petitioned, and got an interim stay, from the apex court stopping Haryana from puncturing the Bhakra Main Line canal till further hearing. Interestingly, Rajasthan joined Punjab in challenging the Haryana government’s unilateral action to dig the 109 km-long feeder multi-purpose Hansi-Butana canal. Both Punjab and Rajasthan have alleged that Haryana is planning to puncture the canal in violation of the Bhakra-Nangal agreement, 1959. Haryana and the central government were supposed to submit their replies. (For details see Khalistan Calling dated 18 July, 2007, headlined, “Punjab government approaches Indian Supreme court against the planned ‘highway robbery’ by state of Haryana to steal Punjab’s water from the Bhakra mainline canal via the nearly complete illegal Hansi-Butana canal being dug inside Haryana territory by clicking at: > http://khalistan-affairs.org/home/khalistancalling/2007/july18.aspx  <

Haryana is not the only robber in town trying to rob the poor Punjabi farmer of river water by tapping the Bhakra Main Line canal which water Punjabis could use to replenish/recharge the underground water which is constantly dropping every year for lack of replenishment and costing more and more every year to raise with tube-wells. The Central government is the other robber which this year bought wheat from the Punjabi farmer at the low official price of Rs. 850 per Quintal. Media reports indicate that the Indian government has contracted to import nearly 7.95 lakh tonnes of wheat by paying nearly Rs. 1, 600 per quintal which makes the deal worth Rupees one billion two hundred and eighty million. For 7.95 lakh tonnes (the same amount of wheat) the government paid the Punjab farmer six hundred and eighty million rupees. Middle men will pocket the huge difference via commissions. The Delhi High Court has today issued notice to the Central government on a public interest litigation petition, (filed by one A.K. Thakur) which has alleged that a decision was taken to import wheat at exorbitant prices. (> http://www.thehindu.com/2007/09/13/stories/2007091354641300.htm  <) A Division Bench, comprising Justices M.K. Sharma and Sanjiv Khanna, has asked the Centre to file a reply by October 9, the next date of hearing. It is obvious that Union Food and Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar is the beneficiary of this hanky panky of six hundred million rupees. Living under such a heartless and crooked central government, headed by a Sikh Prime minister, is there any wonder that the poor Punjab farmer’s (most of them Sikh) total debt has increased 400% in nine years from Rs. 5, 700 crore in 1998 to Rs. 21, 064 crore in 2006 as the sale of wheat at low prices gives the farmer no financial relief?

The next two weeks will probably see the Supreme Court, which is biased against Punjab, shove a fresh agenda – new rules - down riparian Punjab’s ‘throat’ on the long-standing water disputes between Punjab and its neighboring non-riparian states of Haryana and Rajasthan who have been stealing Punjab’s river water free of charge for decades. The question is whether Punjab has done it’s homework and hired the best legal brains to argue for the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act-2004 and shepherd Punjab’s case which has challenged section 78 and 79 of the 1966 Reorganization of states act–1966? (See Khalistan Calling dated 22 August, 2007 at: > http://khalistan-affairs.org/home/khalistancalling/2007/august22.aspx   <)

It is hoped that Chief minister Parkash Singh Badal is not talking with a ‘forked tongue’ on the vital water issue as he did when he let down the thousands of Sikh settlers/pioneers of District Udham Singh Nagar, who wanted their district to remain part of U.P. some years ago. This conjuncture of all the disputes about river water, in the Supreme Court, in the month of September 2007, is no accident or coincident!