Not a drop to share” — is the chorus in Punjab across party lines, as the state locks horns with neighbouring Haryana over water supply from the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB). Members of the board decided to release 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana — double of the 4,000 cusecs it had been receiving each month — at a meeting where representatives from Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan stood on one side, Himachal Pradesh remained non-aligned, and Punjab dissented. The border state refused to back the plan to release more water to Haryana, arguing that Haryana had already drawn 103 per cent of its share for the year. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann then rushed to Nangal with a minister, who physically locked the gates of the dam even as the BBMB transferred the protesting Punjab member. Now, even as the central government urges both states to broker peace, the BBMB has gone to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, saying that Punjab Police has taken over the dam at Nangal. Political parties in Punjab participated in a special assembly session on Monday to discuss the way forward.
Water has always been an emotive issue in the two riparian states, which have a history of discord over river water distribution after Haryana and Himachal were carved out of undivided Punjab in 1966. The Dharam Yudh Morcha, launched in 1982 against digging of the Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal that would divert Sutlej waters to Haryana, set in motion a series of events that snowballed into an armed militancy. That insurgency wracked the state for over a decade and cost the nation a prime minister, a chief minister, and thousands of innocent lives. Decades later, the canal remains a sore point. Former Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh famously abrogated the SYL accord during his 2004 tenure. The largely agrarian state has watched with envy as Haryana transformed into an economic powerhouse.
With over 70 per cent of its aquifers in the red, and dams running dry this season, Punjab’s outrage stems from fear — but politics isn’t far behind. The current war of words comes at a time when the nation confronts a shared threat from terror. Both states would do well to sit across the table and settle their differences. Stirring passions over water in a state where its division still evokes painful memories may offer fleeting political mileage — but it could have a heavy cost. The Centre must step in to guide and advise, while guarding against being perceived as biased towards one side.
