Punjab-Haryana water crisis: Cooperation is needed before the wells run dry
Written by Neeraj Singh Manhas
The Punjab-Haryana water conflict has pushed the region into a crisis, endangering agriculture, livelihoods, and interstate peace. Haryana wants 8,500 cubic feet per second (cusecs) to satisfy drinking water and irrigation requirements in districts including Hisar and Sirsa; Punjab, on the other hand, with very low reservoirs, has reduced supply to 4,000 cusecs to safeguard its agricultural sector.
The dispute highlights not only a fight over water but also a fundamental failure of sustainable resource management. Punjab's groundwater running at extraction is at a critical 165 per cent of its sustainable limit. It means that the state is withdrawing far more water than can be naturally replenished. On the other side, Haryana is struggling with severe shortages. Rooted in past treaties and aggravated by environmental deterioration, this problem calls for cooperative government, agricultural change, and creative water policies to guarantee a robust future for both states.
Three major factors — the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, the 1966 state reorganisation, which carved Haryana out of Punjab, and the required water-sharing under the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) — shape the long-standing conflict. During the depletion period (September 21, 2024 to May 20, 2025), Haryana is entitled to 2.987 million acre-feet (MAF) yearly. Punjab, however, says that Haryana has already used 103 per cent of its share (3.110 MAF) by April 2025. A 23.6 per cent snowfall shortage in 2024–25 and a poor 2024 monsoon have left Punjab's reservoirs, Pong and Ranjit Sagar, nearly depleted, leaving Bhakra as the main surplus source.
Punjab contends this water is essential for its paddy fields, which need 5,337 litres per kilogramme of rice and help India's food security. Haryana, on the other hand, has a drinking water problem since only 60 per cent of its needs are satisfied, which affects rural areas, as well as its supply to Delhi. But the main question is: Will both states give priority to mutual survival above inflexible stances and acknowledge their common vulnerability to climate-driven scarcity?
The history of water-sharing disputes between Indian states has been fraught with challenges. However, during the Green Revolution of the 1960s, Punjab and Haryana emerged as India's breadbasket. However, excessive groundwater pumping seems to threaten Punjab's shallow aquifers by 2029 and deeper ones by 2039. In Haryana, subsidised electricity for tubewells is increasing the number of 'black blocks', where extraction exceeds recharge. Inefficient irrigation and both states' reliance on water-intensive paddy crops further deplete resources.
Solutions include Punjab's 'Pani Bachao, Paisa Kamao' programme, which reduced water use by 30 per cent in pilot projects; and Haryana's adoption of micro-irrigation technologies. Scaling these initiatives, alongside ensuring minimum support prices (MSP) for crops like maize, pulses, and oilseeds, could alleviate pressure. Weak procurement systems have forced Punjab farmers to sell maize at Rs 800-900 per quintal, far below the MSP of Rs 1,850.
However, political discourse has widened the gap. While Punjab's CM Bhagwant Mann contends that Haryana's requests endanger Punjab's agricultural industry, his counterpart in Haryana, Nayab Singh Saini, warns that unutilised Bhakra water runs the risk of leaking to Pakistan. Though election posturing sometimes overshadows answers, both states have conducted all-party discussions, and Punjab held a special Assembly session. Real-time data could help a collaborative water management task force, comprising specialists and farmers under the Bhakra Beas Management Board, and allocate resources. Punjab may let water flow during Haryana's drinking water shortages; Haryana would then return the favour during Punjab's planting season. BBMB has requested the involvement of the Centre. Former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda's plea for conversation underlines the need for collaboration. Would these political leaders give long-term resilience top priority over short-term profits?
Also, the recharging of groundwater is absolutely vital. Restoring 79 abandoned canals and 1,600 km of channels at a cost of Rs 4,000 crore, Punjab has increased canal water utilisation by 12-13 per cent. Haryana, like Uttar Pradesh's Jakhni village, should use the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MGNREGA) for rainwater collecting and put money towards watershed improvement and check dams. However, public initiatives with the Ministry of Jal Shakti and the non-state actors could help to destigmatise the shift from paddy by promoting these activities. Such initiatives, together with community-driven recharge projects, might restore confidence and resources.
Another project, the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal, remains a flashpoint for both the states. Punjab's fears of resource depletion are valid, but Haryana's legal entitlement is clear. A phased approach, starting with partial transfers and joint monitoring, could break the deadlock. Also, for the long term, there is a need to adopt the Nature-based Solutions (NbS), and integrated water resource management, as seen in the 'Atal Bhujal Yojana'. Watershed restoration and ecological flows in dam operations could benefit both states. India's per capita water availability is projected to fall to 1,341 cubic meters by 2025. It is below the threshold of water scarcity. Given the challenges of climate change, the Punjab-Haryana water crisis is a national warning for all Indians.
Can Punjab and Haryana transform this conflict into an opportunity for resilience? A joint task force, crop diversification, groundwater recharge, and compromise on SYL could ensure equitable water sharing and sustainability. The challenge is whether political will and collective action can triumph over division, setting a precedent for India's water-scarce future. Both states must act before the wells run dry.
The author is Special Advisor for South Asia at the Parley Policy Initiative, Republic of Korea. He is a regular commentator on the issues of Water Security and the Transboundary River issues in India and South Asia. Views expressed are personal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
15 minutes ago
- India.com
Turkey threatening India's friend, not Armenia, Modi govt may hit back at Erdogan by...
(File) Ankara: Bankrupt Pakistan is not refraining from spreading propaganda despite facing a humiliating loss to India. However, this terror state is getting the full support of its allies. Countries like China and Turkey are openly amplifying Pakistan's propaganda. Turkey, in particular, has now started threatening India's allies. Pakistan claims to have shot down Indian fighter jets. While India has acknowledged the loss of its aircraft, it has not disclosed how the jets were downed or how many were lost. Turkey is now threatening Greece—India's close ally. Turkish media is using Pakistan's statements to intimidate Greece. Greece, like India, has also purchased 24 Rafale fighter jets from France. Turkish conservative media platform TR Haber has launched new propaganda, claiming that Greece is uncertain about the capabilities of the French fighter jets it recently acquired. The main objective of TR Haber's report is to portray that if Pakistan can target Indian aircraft using China-made JF-17 jets and PL-15 missiles, then Greece's reliance on Rafale fighter jets could be dangerous for it. Tensions between Turkey and Greece have existed for decades, and it is evident from Turkish media reports that Turkey is trying to intimidate Greece. In essence, Turkey wants to use the India-Pakistan conflict to serve its own agenda. Meanwhile, Turkish media conveniently omits reports about how India destroyed Turkish drones as easily as slicing vegetables.
Economic Times
17 minutes ago
- Economic Times
This deal can trigger a new India-China power play
Chagos and the colonial legacy India's stakes in Mauritius Live Events China's expanding footprint Chagos, India's strategic leverage? (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The recent agreement between the UK and Mauritius , where the UK has agreed in principle to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, marks a watershed moment in post-colonial geopolitics. While India has officially hailed the move as the completion of Mauritius's decolonisation process, the implications go far beyond historical justice or moral diplomacy. For India, this development opens new possibilities in its ongoing strategic contest with China for influence across the Indian Ocean region. On this wider maritime chessboard, the Chagos Islands may prove to be a crucial Chagos Archipelago, a group of over 60 small islands in the central Indian Ocean, has been under British control since the 1960s, when it was separated from Mauritius prior to the latter's independence. The United Kingdom then leased the largest island, Diego Garcia, to the United States, which turned it into a major military base. For decades, the Chagos issue remained a sticking point in Mauritius's decolonisation narrative, and its legal claim was supported by international courts and the United has consistently backed Mauritius's claims, both out of principle and geopolitical calculation. The transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius — albeit with the U.S. base likely to continue operating under existing arrangements — allows New Delhi a more open and potentially influential role in shaping the future security architecture of the central Indian stakes in Mauritius are not new. The two countries enjoy strong diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties, underpinned by a shared history and a large Indo-Mauritian population. Nearly 70% of Mauritians are of Indian origin. Under a unique tradition, only Indian citizens, often top officials of Indian security and defence services, are appointed Mauritius' national security adviser and the head of the coast is among the top trading partners and investors in Mauritius, and it has strategically extended lines of credit, development assistance, and infrastructure investment to maintain its influence. India is building a Metro in Mauritius and also built its new Supreme Court building. Recently, the Indian government asked Indian airlines to bail out loss-hit Air 2015, India built a new airstrip and other military infrastructure on Agalega Island, another Mauritian territory. While officially described as supporting civilian use and improving connectivity, the facility is widely understood to have strategic value, potentially allowing India to monitor key maritime chokepoints and naval activity in the region. This development complements India's broader Indian Ocean strategy, which includes military agreements with Seychelles, Madagascar, and Oman, and a growing naval presence in the however, is not standing still. China's presence in the Indian Ocean has been growing rapidly through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), naval deployments, port development, and strategic partnerships. In 2019, China signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Mauritius — its first FTA with an African country — giving it a crucial economic and legal foothold in the island addition, China has funded infrastructure projects in Mauritius, including smart city projects and port modernization. While these developments are framed in economic terms, they potentially serve dual-use purposes, a hallmark of Chinese strategic investments. This expanding influence has naturally caused unease in New Delhi, which views China's Indian Ocean ambitions with deep the Chagos Islands possibly coming under the sovereignty of a friendly and closely aligned Mauritius, India gains several advantages in its strategic calculus. Control over the Chagos archipelago by Mauritius — a pro-India partner — alters the balance of influence in the central Indian Ocean. India could gain access or leverage over these islands to enhance its maritime domain awareness and patrol Diego Garcia will remain under US military use, Mauritius's sovereignty introduces a third actor into strategic dialogues. India, which shares robust defense ties with the US, could benefit from this triangle, facilitating intelligence sharing and operational Beijing establishing port access and naval agreements across the Indian Ocean — including Gwadar in Pakistan, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, and Djibouti — India needs strategic outposts of its own. The Chagos Islands, along with Agalega and other island partnerships, can serve as a counterweight. India has positioned itself as a net security provider in the IOR. Having influence over Chagos enhances its ability to counter piracy, trafficking, and other non-traditional threats, while also projecting hard power if strategic opportunity presented by the Chagos handover is significant, but it is not without challenges. First, the degree of India's access to or use of Chagos territory will depend on the terms Mauritius establishes, particularly in the context of the existing US lease of Diego Garcia. Second, India must be cautious not to provoke unnecessary tension with China, especially in a region where both nations are vying for influence through economic as well as military means. Moreover, the local sensitivities, especially surrounding the displaced Chagossian population and ongoing human rights concerns, mean that any Indian role must be diplomatically nuanced and development-oriented.
News18
27 minutes ago
- News18
Will Germany's Strict Immigration Rules Impact Indians? Citizenship Criteria To Curbs Explained
Last Updated: The government has abolished the fast-track route to citizenship that previously allowed well-integrated migrants to apply for citizenship after three years of residency German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's cabinet on May 28 approved sweeping changes to the country's immigration rules. Among the major changes is a temporary two-year suspension of family reunification rights for those with subsidiary protection — refugees not granted full refugee status, such as many Syrians. During this period, these migrants are not allowed to bring their spouses or children to Germany. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said that Germany's urban systems have reached their 'breaking point" and cannot handle the inflow without causing challenges for public services. Migration is among German voters' biggest concerns and Merz won the election in February pledging a crackdown on migration. NO FAST TRACK The government also abolished the fast-track route to citizenship that previously allowed well-integrated migrants to apply for citizenship after three years of residency. The new rules now require a minimum of five years of residency for German citizenship. However, foreigners married to German citizens can still apply after three years, provided they have been married for at least two years. WHAT IT MEANS FOR INDIANS Most of the Indian professionals and students in Germany are not under subsidiary protection. The changes, however, may impact vulnerable migrants and delay long-term settlement plans. India remains a key contributor to Germany's skilled labor pool, with initiatives such as the ' Opportunity Card ' being expanded to address labour shortages. Merz recently said that a court ruling against the expulsion by border police of three Somali asylum seekers could restrict his government's migration crackdown but would not stop it. People would continue to be turned away at the German border, he said. A Berlin administrative court last week said the expulsion of the three unnamed Somalis, who were sent back to Poland after arriving at a train station in eastern Germany, was 'unlawful". It said that under the European Union's Dublin Regulation, Germany should have determined which country was responsible for processing their claim before sending them back, in a ruling that Merz's interior minister contested. That marks a big shift since Germany's 'Refugees Welcome" culture during Europe's migrant crisis in 2015 under Merz's conservative predecessor, Angela Merkel. Merz's government issued an order in May to reject undocumented migrants, including asylum seekers, at Germany's borders. Dobrindt defended the expulsions, saying he would provide justifications for banning entry and portraying the ruling as an isolated case. 'I have made it clear several times that this is about being overwhelmed, and I see this overburdening," he told reporters. With Agency Inputs First Published: June 08, 2025, 16:45 IST
