New Delhi, July 26: “No state has rights of ownership over water, only rights of use. The Harmon Doctrine is an assertion of sovereignty over water. It is unacceptable,” says Ramaswamy R. Iyer, a former secretary in the Union water resources ministry.

There has not been the slightest suggestion from Punjab that it is willing to consider selling water to Haryana and Rajasthan.

To be able to sell the water, it has to first own it. Far from it, all that Punjab is asserting is that it has the right to use the water that flows through its territory. But that argument is rejected in totality by critics of the Punjab act that abrogates its water-sharing treaties.

“Haryana’s and Rajasthan’s claims do not arise out of riparian rights. They are entitled to their share of waters under the Indus Water Treaty after Partition and subsequent accords after the reorganisation of states. It is not within the right of a state government to unilaterally negate these treaties,” says Iyer, who has authored a book on water-sharing disputes.

Punjab’s unilateral action is flogged all the more because it has not waited for the report of the Eradi tribunal. The tribunal led by Justice Eradi was set up in 1986 to determine the quantum of waters of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej to be allocated to Haryana and Rajasthan. It has to come out with its final report after a reference by the Centre.

Justice Eradi says the report will be out in two months. “The tribunal gave its report in 1987 and we have been looking into a central reference on technicalities and will come out with clarifications and replies. We are basically looking into the apportionment of river waters. When a matter is pending before a tribunal, you cannot change it by a piece of local legislation in Punjab.”

In the US, all inter-state water-sharing disputes are referred to a tribunal by the Supreme Court, whose word is final. That is obviously the kind of process that Punjab is challenging in India. It is another matter that the nearly two-decade-long tribunal is also a test of Punjab’s patience.

If the Supreme Court had not set a deadline for the Centre to begin work on the Punjab portion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal, matters would not have come to such a head.

“People are basically playing a deep political game,” says Iyer. “(Punjab chief minister) Amarinder Singh has done what he has for his political gain. Even if the Supreme Court strikes down what he has done, he would have gained politically.”

The dispute between Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan is not comparable with the Cauvery and Krishna water-share dispute between Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra because all three states are riparian.

“What we are seeing now is not a riparian dispute. This dispute is about allocation of water under the Punjab Reorganisation Act. In 1976, the Centre notified Haryana’s allocation. The allocation to Rajasthan goes back even further to an international treaty. How can a state unilaterally abrogate these treaties?” asks Iyer.

Haryana’s claim arises because of its separation from Punjab when all assets were divided 3:2. Rajasthan’s claim draws its origin to the Indus treaty because India could argue with the World Bank that brokered the pact in 1960 that it was water-deficit and, therefore, needed larger shares from the three eastern rivers of the Indus system (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej).

Iyer says the answer to water sharing in the long run lies in management of water and in changing cropping patterns that will not tinker with nature.

“Scientifically, water usage has to reduce, whether it is Punjab, Haryana or Rajasthan. Second, there has to be a national consensus — like we had during the Kargil war — that water issues will not be politicised. It has to be understood that Punjab ka paani Punjab ka nahin hai.”