[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 14, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1369-E1370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PUNJAB GOVERNMENT CANCELS DEAL THAT ALLOWED DIVERSION OF WATER TO OTHER 
                STATES; LEGISLATURE ASSERTS SOVEREIGNTY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 13, 2004

  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly of Punjab recently 
annulled a longstanding agreement that allowed the diversion of water 
from Punjab to other states.
  According to the Tribune of Chandigarh, whose article I will be 
inserting in the Record at the end of my remarks, the Legislative 
Assembly asserted the sovereignty of Punjab in doing so. The newspaper 
reports that the bill passed by the Legislative Assembly says that ``as 
a sovereign authority [Punjab] considered it its duty to uphold the 
Constitution and the laws and to protect the interests of its 
inhabitants.''
  Apparently, all parties supported this measure. We congratulate them 
on taking this step forward to protect the interests of the people of 
Punjab. I urge them to continue claiming, promoting, and establishing 
the sovereignty of Punjab.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that the people of Punjab have been severely 
oppressed by the tyrannical Indian government. Over a quarter of a 
million Sikhs have been killed since 1984, according to the Punjab 
State Magistracy. The Movement Against State Repression reports that 
52,268 have been taken as political prisoners, held without charge or 
trial, some as long as 20 years. According to the Punjab Human Rights 
Commission, about 50,000 Sikhs have simply been made to disappear by 
being arrested, tortured, killed in police custody, declared 
``unidentified bodies,'' and secretly cremated, without their remains 
even being given back to their families.
  Similar repression has been visited on Christians, Muslims, and other 
minorities. Yet India continues to say that it is the world's largest 
democracy.
  If India is truly a democracy, it will allow the will of the people 
to be carried out in regards to the diversion of water. It will allow 
the people--Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, 
Manipuris, Tamils, and everyone living under Indian rule--to enjoy the 
full range of human rights. And it will allow self-determination for 
these sovereign states.
  Until that happens, Mr. Speaker, we should not provide any aid to 
India. And we should take a stand for self-determination, which is the 
cornerstone of democracy, by supporting a free and fair plebiscite on 
independence in Punjab, Khalistan, in Kashmir, in predominantly 
Christian Nagaland, and everywhere that people seek their freedom from 
Indian rule. The assertion of sovereignty by the Punjab Legislative 
Assembly is a good first step. They should act to claim their 
sovereignty by severing their ties to India. We should take a stand by 
letting them know that when they do, we will be there with them.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I would like to insert the 
Tribune article into the Record.

             [From the Tribune (Chandigarh), July 13, 2004]

    Punjab Annuls All Water Pacts: Cong, Akalis Join Hands on Issue

                            (By P.P.S. Gill)

       Chandigarh, July 12.--A special session of the Punjab 
     Vidhan Sabha today unanimously passed the Punjab Termination 
     of Agreements Bill, 2004, thereby ``knocking down'' the very 
     basis on which the Supreme Court had passed its order on 
     construction of SYL--Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal on June 4, 
     last. This Bill annuls the December 31, 1981, agreement 
     between Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan signed by the three 
     Chief Ministers in the presence of the late Ms Indira Gandhi 
     and also all other agreements relating to the water of the 
     rivers, Ravi and Beas. This, the Bill says, was done in 
     ``public interest''. The annulment has come after 23 long 
     years with two staunch political rivals, the Congress and the 
     Akalis, joining hands to protect the state's riparian rights. 
     Immediately after the Bill was passed, the Chief Minister, 
     Capt Amarinder Singh, accompanied by the Leader of the 
     Opposition, Mr Parkash Singh Badal, PPCC president, Mr H.S. 
     Hanspal, Ms Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, Mr Partap Singh Bajwa and 
     a team of legal experts went to Raj Bhavan to meet the 
     Governor, Justice O.P. Verma (retd.), to request him to give 
     his assent to the Bill, as the dead-line for compliance with 
     the Supreme Court order was July 15. The combined delegation 
     spent an hour with the Governor. The Raj Bhavan sources said, 
     ``The Bill is being examined.''
       Capt Amarinder Singh told TNS that he had not discussed the 
     Bill with Ms Sonia Gandhi. ``Why involve her? When I go to 
     Delhi, I shall brief her''.
       Presenting the Bill to the House, Capt. Amarinder Singh 
     made an emotive speech giving facts, figures and background 
     to the entire issue of sharing of river waters and steps 
     taken in the recent past to protect and safeguard the 
     interests of Punjab, particularly the farmers and save nine 
     lakh acres going dry and barren, which would affect the 
     livelihood of 1.5 million families.
       The Bill says that Punjab was proud of its position in the 
     Indian union, felt equal concern for its neighbours and as a 
     sovereign authority also considered it its duty to uphold the 
     constitution and the laws and to protect the interests of its 
     inhabitants.
       Under the 1981 agreement, flow series were changed from 
     1921-45 to 1921-60, which had the result of increasing the 
     availability of Ravi-Beas waters from 15.85 MAF to 17.17 MAF. 
     The allocation of water made to the states concerned under 
     that Agreement was as under:
       Haryana (non-riparian) 3.50 MAF, Rajasthan (non-riparian) 
     8.60 MAF, Delhi (non-riparian) 0.20 MAF, Punjab (riparian) 
     4.22 MAF and Jammu and Kashmir (riparian) 0.65 MAF. Under 
     clause IV of this agreement, Punjab and Haryana withdrew 
     their respective suits from the Supreme Court. But the 
     controversy rages on. The issue has become emotive.
       Referring to the broad clauses of the proposed Bill, Capt 
     Amarinder Singh maintained that riparian and basin principles 
     were ignored all along and allocation of the Ravi-Beas waters 
     had always been affected by ``ad hoc decisions and 
     agreements, dictated by prevalent circumstances''. Here was a 
     typical case involving ``emotive'' issue of impending 
     transfer of water from ``deficit'' Ravi-Beas basin to the 
     ``surplus'' Yamuna basin.
       Never any reliable and scientific study of hydrological, 
     ecological and sociological impact of such large scale trans-
     basin diversion from Punjab to Haryana and Rajasthan had been 
     undertaken. Besides this transfer, diversion was even 
     contrary to the National Water Policy guidelines, he added.
       Capt Amarinder Singh pointed out, ``Non-riparian and non-
     basin states of Haryana and Rajasthan are not only not 
     entitled to any Ravi-Beas waters, even their current 
     allocation and utilisation is totally disproportionate to the 
     areas alleged to be falling in the Indus basin. Therefore, 
     Punjab, as a good neighbour, has accepted such utilisations 
     by Haryana and Rajasthan as `usages by sufferance' but not as 
     a matter of any recognition of their rights''.
       He supported this hypothesis, when he posed the question, 
     ``Does Punjab have surplus water and do the claimants of our 
     water a legal right to it?'' Then, he paused for effect, 
     ``The answer to this question is a resounding `no''', and 
     went on to give the following picture:
       All three rivers, the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej, flow 
     through the present Punjab and none through either Haryana or 
     Rajasthan. No part of territories of these states fall within 
     the basin areas of the Ravi and the Beas, although, according 
     to un-substantiated report of the Irrigation Commission, only 
     9,939 sq. kms. within Haryana fall in Indus basin, against 
     50,305 sq. kms. of Punjab.
       Again, the present utilisation by Haryana was about 5.95 
     MAF, about 4.33 MAF from Sutlej and about 1.62 MAF from the 
     Ravi-Beas water, through the existing systems. Also out of 
     17.17 MAF of ``surplus'' Ravi-Beas water, only 4.22 MAF was 
     allocated to Punjab, a riparian state, against higher 
     quantities to Haryana and Rajasthan. From the total surplus 
     availability of 11.98 MAF of the Beas water, Punjab has been 
     allocated 2.64 MAF.
       Therefore, justifying the annulling of the December 31, 
     1981, agreement and all other agreements relating to the Ravi 
     and the Beas, the Bill seeks to present the fact that ground 
     realities have since undergone a sea change from that date 
     and Punjab settlement of July 24, 1985, under the Rajiv-
     Longowal Agreement. Therefore, this had made the 
     implementation of that 1981 agreement ``onerous and 
     injurious'' to the public interest.
       The availability of the Ravi-Beas water, 1717 MAF, as on 
     December 31, 1981, has been reduced to 14.37 MAF, as per the 
     flow series of 1981-2002. Haryana has been given 4.65 MA 
     under the Yamuna agreement of May 12, 1994, which will be 
     further augmented by the Sarda-Yamuna link. In the meanwhile, 
     irrigation requirements have increased in Punjab. ``The 
     Punjab settlement, except one para 9, relating to allocation 
     of the Ravi-Beas water, has remained unimplemented in letter 
     and spirit, to date.''

[[Page E1370]]

       In these circumstances, the terms of 1981 agreement were 
     ``onerous, unfair, un-reasonable and contrary to the 
     interests of the inhabitants of the Ravi-Beas basin, who have 
     law-full rights to utilise water of these rivers''. Is the 
     Bill justified? Will it tantamount to contempt of the court? 
     In his well prepared speech, Capt. Amarinder Singh has 
     addressed such questions, as well.
       Armed with the House resolution of June 15 that aims to 
     protect the rights of Punjab, legal opinions and all-party 
     resolution of June 12, the Chief Minister said.
       ``This mandate enables the government to find ways and 
     means to protect the people from adverse consequences of the 
     Supreme Court judgment of June 4. The state had been advised 
     that the obligations arising from an agreement or the 
     contract did not fetter the powers of the legislature to 
     enact a law in public interest.
       ``We have been further advised that it is a well settled 
     law that the legislature is competent remove or take away the 
     basis of judgment by law and thereby it does not encroach 
     upon the exercise of the judicial power of the judiciary 
     and the legislative action within its competence, do not 
     commit a contempt of court. However, final decision in all 
     these matters lies in the court, as any law enacted by 
     this august House is subject to a judicial review''.
       When the Bill had been introduced, Mr Parkash Singh Badal 
     stood up to express the collective anguish of the opposition 
     that on such an important item, involving the question of 
     ``life and death'' had been treated lightly by the government 
     and till noon today ``we had no idea of what the agenda was 
     all about nor we had received copy of the Bill or what it was 
     all about''.
       Mr Badal said the traditions and conventions of the House 
     were being eroded, day-by-day. ``It was also a disgrace that 
     even the information inviting us to meet the Governor after 
     the House had passed the resolution was sent by the Congress 
     president, Mr H S Hanspal, who was not involved in this in 
     any which way. How can we discuss anything at such a short 
     notice? We are against political confrontation and are 
     available 24-hours for any thing related to the interests of 
     the state and are willing to support the government''.
       Thereafter, the Speaker, Dr Kewal Krishan said he had 
     received a resolution sent by four Akali MLAs, Mr Parkash 
     Singh Badal, Capt. Kanwaljit Singh, Mr Gurdev Singh Badal and 
     Mr Manpreet Singh Badal, for the consideration of the House.
       Then, he ruled that since a comprehensive Bill was being 
     presented, they could express their views while speaking on 
     that. Mr Manpreet Singh Badal and Capt Kanwaljit Singh 
     suggested that certain provisions, including Clause 78, in 
     the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, be also annulled. BJP's 
     Tikshan Sud, said though a ``belated step'', the Bill was a 
     welcome and offered full co-operation but rued that the 
     Opposition be given due place and respect.
       On this the Captain had stated in his reply that whatever 
     steps were required to be taken to protect Punjab's interests 
     would be taken in consultation with the legal experts.
       The speakers, including Mr Bir Devinder Singh and Mr Jeet 
     Mohinder Singh spoke in the context of historical background, 
     stressing time and again on the riparian principles. Mr Bir 
     Devinder Singh recalled how even the British Government had 
     sought a certificate from Punjab that it will protect its own 
     interests under the riparian rights while selling water to 
     Rajasthan.
       Mr Bir Devinder Singh even cautioned to be prepared 
     following the enactment of the Act, terminating 1981 and 
     other agreements since new situation would develop. Mr Jeet 
     Mohinder Singh wondered if the Bill would stop the 
     construction of SYL. He was for adding a new amendment in the 
     form of a clause in the Eastern Punjab Canal and Drains Act, 
     1873 that permission of the state Assembly should be 
     mandatory to dig or construct any canal that carries water 
     beyond the boundaries of the state.


                         Rare bonhomie in House

       The discussion on the Bill was, however, not without the 
     usual political punches and colour. There were moments when 
     some ministers and opposition members took pot shots blaming 
     either side for having failed Punjab and messed up the water 
     issue.
       Some Opposition members said had such a Bill been brought 
     forward 23 years ago, Punjab would have been spared the 
     agony. Even the Bill says that in the wake of large-scale 
     militancy, the Punjab settlement was reached, which however, 
     had remained unimplemented in letter and spirit.
       For once, the House was in a serious mood. There were no 
     political skirmishes, though usual jibes were heard. The 
     Governor's and Speaker's galleries were packed.
       But it was the Captain's day all the way. Having worked 
     overtime to get this Bill prepared, presented and passed by 
     the House, he responded to the collective anguish of the 
     opposition, expressed by Mr Badal, with utmost humility and 
     courtesy, acknowledging all what Mr Badal had said. But then 
     he point by point not only explained the unusual 
     circumstances, including race against time, under which the 
     Bill in as prepared and thus could not be circulated earlier, 
     giving the members a chance to prepare themselves.
       Capt. Amarinder Singh was apologetic and said so repeatedly 
     taking the wind out of the sails of the Akalis. He showed 
     faint starchiness in his voice, when he responded to some of 
     the observations of Capt. Kanwaljit Singh, saying, ``We are 
     together here for an important task, not for rhetoric and 
     emotive outbursts. We cannot allow Punjab to go back into the 
     grip of violence''.
       Warming up, he concluded, ``We will resort to all legal and 
     constitutional means to seek justice. Already enough 
     bloodshed has taken place. Even all the bodies have not been 
     counted, so far. We shall fight to the end but within the 
     parameters of laws, rules and the constitution. I will be 
     willing to resign, if need be, for the sake of Punjab. The 
     time is not for blame game. We have all made mistakes in the 
     past. We are rectifying the same after 23 years. Come, lets 
     join hands, close ranks. I appreciate the Opposition's co-
     operation''.

                          ____________________