Punjab and Haryana Should Bury the Bhakra-Beas Basin Barbs: Time to Exercise Restraint
As India asserts its rights under suspended Indus Waters Treaty, domestic discord over the Saraswati revival and Sutlej diversions risks undermining national unity, federal balance, and water security
Time for Haryana and Punjab to Exercise Restraint
By Karan Bir Singh Sidhu
Irresponsible Statement by a Lower-Rung Haryana Functionary Sparks Needless Provocation
On April 27, 2025, Dhuman Singh Kirmach, Vice-Chairman of the Haryana Sarasvati Heritage Development Board (HSHDB), sparked a wholly avoidable interstate controversy by announcing Haryana’s intent to divert waters from the Bhakra Dam in Himachal Pradesh into the Saraswati river—a plan that does not exist even at the preliminary planning stage and lacks any formal sanction from either the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) or the Government of India. This sweeping proposal was publicised despite there being no new agreement with Himachal Pradesh, no clearance from Punjab or Rajasthan—both BBMB member states—and most notably, no public comment or endorsement from Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini.
That such a provocative and technically ungrounded claim could emerge from a junior political appointee, and yet remain uncorrected by the state leadership, reflects poorly on Haryana’s institutional discipline and raises serious questions about the Centre’s silence. It is essential that political rhetoric not be allowed to outrun legal and administrative process, especially when dealing with something as sensitive and constitutionally governed as interstate river waters. The onus is now on both the Chief Minister of Haryana and the BJP high command to rein in such elements before symbolic initiatives like Saraswati river revival are turned into instruments of provocation and dispute.
A Festival of Revival or a Flashpoint of Discord?
Earlier in Januauary 2025, Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini, while inaugurating the International Saraswati Mahotsav at Adi Badri in Yamunanagar, had no doubt announced the State’s ambitious plan to ensure a perennial flow in the Saraswati river. Backed by a ₹54.71 crore development package, including small irrigation and soil conservation projects, his statement—
"The Haryana Government has signed an agreement with Himachal Pradesh to ensure a perennial flow of water in the Saraswati River..."
—was intended to project cultural revivalism. Yet, seen in the context of Kirmach’s statement, it ignited a sharp political reaction from Punjab, which viewed the announcement with alarm, especially in the context of parallel proposals to divert Sutlej river waters upstream of its borders.
This development marks the latest escalation in a decades-old inter-state water dispute, reflecting deep tensions over federal water-sharing norms, river basin management, and historical grievances.
Two Saraswati Revival Projects: A Tale of Diverging Legitimacy
To assess the merits and demerits, it is essential to distinguish between two separate initiatives linked to Haryana’s Saraswati river revival:
✅ Project 1: The Somb River Dam (Legally Sound)
Anchored in a 2022 Memorandum of Understanding between Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.
Proposes to store monsoonal flows from the Somb river, a tributary of the Yamuna, and release them into the Saraswati’s channel near Adi Badri.
Punjab is not a stakeholder, as the Somb does not fall within the Indus basin and is therefore legally outside the BBMB framework.
This project, while ambitious, is arguably within legal bounds and supported by topographical and hydrological data.
⚠️ Project 2: Sutlej Diversion via Himachal (Legally Contentious)
A newly proposed plan, still under discussion, to divert Sutlej river water from Himachal Pradesh into the Somb river and then into the Saraswati’s course.
It bypasses Punjab’s territory but relies on upstream Sutlej water, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), constituted under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
The Sutlej is an interstate river; its allocation is subject to existing agreements and judicial directives, particularly affecting Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and others.
Punjab’s objection to this second proposal is not emotional—it is rooted in law, specifically the principles of equitable riparian rights and federal consent.
BBMB’s May 1 Directive: Political Timing, Technical Alarm
Barely days after the Adi Badri announcement, the BBMB today (on May 1, 2025), resolved to release 8,500 cusecs of additional water to Haryana, despite Punjab’s formal objection during a tense five-hour meeting.
Punjab, supported by Rajasthan, contended that Haryana had already exceeded 104% of its annual water quota.
It flagged peak summer demand and paddy sowing requirements, asserting that no surplus existed.
Following Punjab’s walkout, BBMB controversially transferred Akashdeep Singh, Punjab’s Director of Water Regulation, and replaced him with a Haryana cadre engineer with no background in water regulation.
This abrupt administrative reshuffle—carried out without explanation and without consulting Punjab—reinforced the perception that the BBMB, as an instrumentality of the Centre, was no longer functioning as a neutral arbiter, but rather as a facilitator of one state’s interests at the expense of federal balance.
Punjab’s Firm Stand: Legal Rights, Not Political Resistance
Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann reacted firmly:
“Punjab will not allow even a single drop of its rightful water to be snatched. These decisions are political weapons being wielded against our farmers.”
Even Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu, from the ruling BJP, conceded:
“There is no justification for altering water allocations arbitrarily. Punjab’s concerns must be respected.”
The rare convergence of voices across party lines in Punjab points to a deeper constitutional concern: can water-sharing arrangements be altered unilaterally, bypassing judicial review and federal consensus? On balance, Punjab’s resistance is anchored in constitutional norms, environmental sustainability, and judicial sanctity.
SYL Canal: A Legacy of Discord and Disruption
The unresolved Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal dispute continues to cast a long and volatile shadow over interstate water relations. Conceived under the 1985 Rajiv-Longowal Accord as a mechanism to resolve water-sharing between Punjab and Haryana, the canal has since become a symbol of broken promises, prolonged agitation, and targeted bloodshed. The project’s implementation, particularly in Punjab, sparked violent resistance, including the assassination of key political figures, and played a defining role in the militant insurgency era.
Punjab’s long-standing refusal to construct its portion of the SYL canal—initially supported by the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, and rooted in legitimate concerns over groundwater depletion and ecological stress—has been consistently reaffirmed through multiple resolutions passed by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. The matter remains sub judice before the Supreme Court of India, which has directed the parties to pursue a negotiated and lawful resolution, while directing a status quo on the SYL canal and the land acquired for the project.
New Proposals, Old Wounds: Cooperative Federalism at Risk
Against this backdrop, the continued tolerance of provocative assertions—whether from official or unofficial, and often irresponsible quarters in Haryana—without prompt and categorical rebuttal by the Centre as speculative or unfounded, only heightens Punjab’s institutional and political anxieties. These apprehensions are compounded by the ongoing farmers’ agitation over the demand for a statutory MSP regime, and the broader agrarian reality that only about 27% of Punjab’s irrigated area is canal-fed, while the remaining dependence on groundwater through tube-wells continues to accelerate the depletion of an already fragile water table.
In this context, public remarks about a so-called “new” plan to divert Sutlej waters via Himachal Pradesh—entirely bypassing Punjab—are viewed not merely as administrative overreach, but as a deliberate attempt to sidestep the core tenets of cooperative federalism and judicial oversight. Such maneuvers, perceived as unilateral and opaque, threaten the delicate framework of interstate trust and national cohesion, especially in a region already under ecological and socio-political stress.
Ghaggar or Saraswati? Shared Geography, Mutual Responsibility
The Saraswati river is believed by many hydrological experts and scholars of ancient history to have flowed along the broader course of the present-day Ghaggar river, which meanders between Punjab and Haryana before entering Rajasthan and eventually disappearing into the Thar Desert. Several scholars agree that reviving this ancient palaeochannel holds not only cultural significance but also hydrological value, particularly for flood control and irrigation potential, provided it is pursued in a spirit of interstate cooperation, with central mediation and funding.
However, such shared geography necessitates shared governance. Attempting to revive the Saraswati by diverting water from a contentious river like the Sutlej—without Punjab’s participation or BBMB’s approval—risks setting a damaging precedent, while undermining the institutional integrity of established interstate water-sharing frameworks.
Sharda-Yamuna Link: A Constructive Alternative
In contrast, the Sharda-Yamuna Link Canal Project, an Indo-Nepal initiative, presents a constructive and less divisive alternative to the controversial proposals surrounding the Sutlej. If Sharda waters are routed through the Ghaggar basin, including tributaries such as Tangri and Markanda, it could offer multiple benefits:
Reduce dependency on politically volatile Sutlej allocations.
Serve both Haryana and Punjab, as the Ghaggar naturally flows through both states before entering Rajasthan.
Provide drinking and irrigation water to northwestern Haryana, southeastern Punjab (including parts of Patiala, Sangrur, and Mansa), and northern Rajasthan.
Enable small hydroelectric projects and seasonal flood regulation without major dislocation or interstate tension.
The Ghaggar and its tributaries, currently lacking any comprehensive dam or flood-control infrastructure, often wreak havoc during intense monsoons, affecting both Punjab and Haryana, with the low-lying districts of Patiala, Sangrur, and Mansa bearing the brunt in Punjab. The only exception remains the Kaushalya Dam near Kalka, which was built exclusively for drinking water and domestic use—and for which Punjab had magnanimously granted its No Objection Certificate, recognising its limited and essential purpose.
Routing Sharda waters through this corridor would not only support agriculture and drinking water needs, but also allow for planned flood mitigation, turning a zone of dispute into a zone of development. It would demonstrate the potential of cooperative federalism, backed by central mediation and scientific planning, offering a mutually beneficial path forward.
Indus Treaty Suspension and National Water Security
Ironically, even as India suspends the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan to assert its sovereign rights over the Indus and its five tributaries—the Sutlej, Beas, Ravi, Chenab, and Jhelum—persistent internal discord between Punjab and Haryana over what appear to be domestic and relatively contained issues on some of these very rivers—waters in which Pakistan has no stake whatsoever—undermines India’s diplomatic posture and strategic credibility.
India cannot realistically expect to fully utilize its 3.6 million acre-feet (MAF) annual entitlement from the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—as per the letter and spirit of the Indus Waters Treaty, while interstate friction continues to paralyze dam releases, canal construction, and consensus-building at home. The contradiction between external assertion and internal disarray weakens not just water governance, but also national strategic coherence.
Myth and Politics: Misusing the Sacred for the Strategic
It is deeply regrettable that some publicity-driven politicians in Haryana are invoking Goddess Saraswati—the revered embodiment of wisdom, learning, and beauty—as a political emblem to fuel interstate discord. Exploiting the symbolic sanctity of the eponymous river to advance narrow agendas is not only irresponsible but a betrayal of the very ideals the Goddess represents. Such elements must be firmly reined in—both by Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini and the BJP’s national leadership—before cankerous discourse is weaponised against the spirit of federal harmony and constitutional balance.
Looking Forward: Let Logic, Not Politics, Prevail
India’s interstate river system is a national resource, subject to internationally accepted riparian principles, not the preserve of any one state. Water-sharing must be guided by principles that transcend parochial interests:
Legality over legacy
Data over dogma
Consensus over compulsion
Riparian fairness over regional dominance
Haryana’s cultural aspirations are not without merit, but they must be pursued within the framework of the Constitution and ecological prudence. Punjab, while justifiably protective of its resources, should remain receptive to dialogue—especially when viable and equitable alternatives like the Sharda-Yamuna Link offer mutual benefits, particularly if extended to include the Ghaggar and its tributaries.
If such initiatives are brought under the umbrella of Indus Basin Projects and declared national projects with 100% central funding, they could promote fairness, reduce friction, and strengthen the foundations of cooperative federalism.
Let this mark the beginning of a more reasoned and responsible chapter in India’s river management—not another act in its recurring political theatre.