Disputes over river water between upstream and downstream states are common. In India, they have often gone to the Supreme Court, which has given the best possible solution. It has to be enforced by the central government, which has often proved too indecisive. In this Business World column of 21 July 2004, I criticized the centre for its timidity.
Exercise your
authority
The Punjab assembly, at the instigation
of the government, unilaterally abrogated all treaties relating to the sharing
of the waters of the Ravi and Beas rivers with Haryana and Rajasthan last week.
The Central government went to the Supreme Court for a direction on the issue.
The Punjab
government has stubbornly refused to construct its portion of the Sharda-Yamuna
canal and to share the waters of the Ravi with Haryana. The issue goes back to
the separation of Haryana from Punjab in 1966. Punjab was divided by an Act of
Parliament – the Punjab Reorganisation Act – which specifically gives the
Centre power to allocate the waters of the Ravi and the Beas. The division of
the waters and the construction of the Sharda-Yamuna canal were agreed between
the chief minister of Punjab, Harchand Singh Longowal, and the Prime Minister,
Rajiv Gandhi, in 1985 – in a peace pact that ended the militancy in Punjab but
cost Longowal his life.
Thus the
division of the waters flowing through it was implicit in the division of
Punjab. When the Punjab government proved recalcitrant, the Centre took it to
the Supreme Court. On January 15, 2002, the Supreme Court ordered the Punjab
government to start constructing the canal forthwith and finish it within a
year. The Punjab government did nothing; hours before the deadline expired, it
filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal,
and on an application from the Haryana government, asked the Union government
this June to take over construction and the Punjab government to hand over the
land for the canal.
Thus there can
be no doubt about the merits of the case. Both the Centre and the Supreme Court
have repeatedly asked Punjab to cooperate in the division, and it has brazenly
refused to do so. Whilst the Supreme Court may lay down what is equitable – and
long ago did so – the responsibility to implement its verdict rests with the
governments. And if the Punjab government flouts the Supreme Court’s verdict,
the responsibility to bring it back within the law rests with the supreme
national executive – the Government of India.
What the Supreme
Court wants the Union government to do is laid out in black and white in its
verdict of June 4: it wants the Centre to take over the construction of the
canal. After this, the Union government did not need any further instructions;
it should have moved forthwith to implement the Supreme Court’s verdict. Its
failure to act expeditiously and allowed opposition to gather steam, which
finally led to the Punjab assembly’s perverse verdict. To go back to the
Supreme Court now only underlines the Union government’s indecision.
The precedent
for this pusillanimity was set by the previous government. The Cauvery waters
dispute is much older than the one over te Ravi and Beas. Judicial bodies have
adjudicated over it and have been disobeyed by the Karanataka government.
Exasperated, the Supreme Court asked the Union government to play a direct
role: the prime minister was required to bring the two chief ministers of Tamil
Nadu and Karnataka together and bring them to their senses. But the chief
ministers did not agree to get together with him, he did not press, and the
chief minister of Karnataka sensed Vajpayee’s weakness and defeated all
attempts at conciliation.
Prevarication
was a part of Vajpayee’s style. Let Manmohan Singh not make it a part of his.
Governments are elected to sort out political differences peacefully. In our
country, weak governments abdicate this responsibility and toss the ball to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can give a verdict, but it is for the
governments to implement it. Vajpayee did not fulfil his duty as head of
government, which was to implement the law. His is a legacy that the prime
minister needs to shed if he is not to join the all-too-long list of weak and
eminently forgettable leaders.
The constitution
gives the Centre primacy over the states; it must retain and exercise that
primacy if the country is not to eventually disintegrate or become
ungovernable. Power decays unless it is exercised. This does not mean that the
Union government must use force to bring the Punjab government to its heels.
But it must use all the constitutional means at its command to make Punjab see
the error of its ways. Punjab’s dereliction must be debated in Parliament, and
the full weight of Parliament must be brought to bear against Punjab. Perhaps
Vajpayee could not have done this against Karnataka. But both the numbers in
Parliament and the status of Manmohan Singh make it possible for him to revive
the authority of the Centre, and to restore its role as the guardian of
justice. Let him come out boldly in favour of justice and the rule of law.
