The politics: Amarinder as federalist

All over the world, including India, we accept the principle of the riparian state. Yet, as far as Punjab is concerned, there appear to be some double standards. Haryana claims that before 1966, it was part of a riparian state. But if the interests of farmers were so dear to them, why did they struggle for a separate state and consequently lose the status of a riparian state?

Today, Haryana is no more a riparian state. It has sacrificed the interest of its farmers. And what about Rajasthan? Should the water flowing to Rajasthan be stopped simply because Haryana was a part of Punjab before 1966? Haryana is now agriculturally and economically rich only because of the waters of Punjab.

There are several states in India which possess different natural resources, such as coal, oil, gas, stones, marble, even sand. They are supplied by paying a price. Punjab purchases these as well. There are states where job reservations are in force. It is highly unfair to accuse Punjab of damaging India, when several other states act out of self-interest.

Before Partition, waters from Punjab were given to some parts of the states of Patiala and Rajasthan. That was with the consent of the Punjab government and not through the force of the Centre. In this instance, both the parties paid royalty to the Punjab government as it was a favour and not a right.

The point is, Punjab and Haryana must be allowed to sit together and sort out the water problem without being held hostage by the Centre. There is really no need for a third party to enter into the negotiations between the two states termed as elder brother and younger brother. This would be the first step towards building a mechanism of federalism, by which problems could be solved between states rather than by Central diktat.

The writer is former professor, Panjab University