Sukhbir writes to PM Modi, says river water issue not a dispute but 'loot' against Punjab
The Akali chief 'cautioned the country that not removing the reasons of alienation of Punjabis can push us back towards the conditions that afflicted us all for over two decades. Justice is the best guarantee for peace and communal harmony in the country'.
Badal wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, requesting him to end the reasons that have caused so much avoidable misery in the past. 'Removing the reasons of (Punjab's just grievances) and preventing the recurrence of the painful past needs to be a national priority. On the river waters issue, the only way to achieve that is to ensure justice to my state on exactly the principles applied in interstate disputes all over the country. Punjabis demand no favours: they only seek justice'.
He slammed the Punjab Chief Minister, saying that his and his party's repeated promises to 'irrigate every field in Haryana and Rajasthan with Punjab's river waters' weaken Punjab's genuine case that it has not a single drop of water to spare. 'The Chief Minister is playing with fire with his duplicity, not realising the gravity of the issue. He must put an end to this double-speak,' Badal wrote.
He said that Shiromani Akali Dal would not remain a mute witness to any discrimination against Punjab on this or any other issue. 'We will exercise our democratic right to peacefully ensure that no injustice is done to the state.' He said that already, Rajasthan and Haryana have always been 'illegal beneficiaries of Punjab's sole natural resource -- the river waters -- violating the Riparian principle, the only principle applied in national and international issues on river waters allocation. Neither Haryana nor Rajasthan is a Riparian state.'
He regretted that Punjab had been treated shabbily even on the judicial front. 'The Supreme Court ordered Punjab to start the construction of the Satluj Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, without even determining the availability of water in the rivers concerned. This would have been the first canal in the world to be constructed even without knowing if there is any water available to flow through it,' he said, adding then Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal categorically refused to implement this order, saying he would rather go to jail than compromise on the just rights of Punjab. Badal then ordered the restoration of lands acquired for the SYL to their original owner farmers.
Referring to the latest controversy on the release of water to Haryana, the Akali chief said Haryana has already used more than the full share of rivers, which too had been unfairly allocated to it as it has no right on those waters. Instead of being grateful to Punjab, it brazenly demands even more water, he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
4 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC raps Allahabad HC over 'intemperate' remarks on Banke Bihari Temple ordinance
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over the orders passed by Allahabad High Court in a PIL over historic Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan and questioned the use of 'intemperate language' against the Uttar Pradesh government. The top court also stayed further proceedings before the high court in the petition challenging the Banke Bihari temple ordinance.(File Photo) A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi perused the orders of July 21 and August 6 by a single-judge bench of the high court on a PIL which challenged the ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 and stayed the observations made in them. Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, pointed out to the bench that the high court conducted "parallel proceedings" on the issue and made certain "unwarranted observations" in the order. "What kind of intemperate language is being used by the high court? The state committed a sin by passing an ordinance. What is all this? Was the high court not informed that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter?" the bench said. Justice Kant further said the petitions challenging constitutional validity of a statute were always listed before the division bench but a single-judge passed the order in the present case. The bench ordered a stay on the observations made in the July 21 order, which appointed an amicus curiae besides the August 6 order having observations against the state. The top court also stayed further proceedings before the high court in the petition challenging the ordinance. It asked the Allahabad High Court chief justice to consider listing the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the ordinance before a division bench along with other petitions. On August 6, the high court criticised the state government's move to bring an ordinance proposing a statutory trust to manage the historic Banke Bihari Temple and observed that the state has committed a 'sin'. During the hearing, the single judge made sharp remarks on an attempt of the state government to take over the administration of the temple and asked the government to "leave the temple alone".
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Govt rules out changes to DPDP act, FAQs to address concerns soon: Report
The government does not see any scope for making changes in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and may issue a detailed reply soon to explain issues raised by journalists and civil rights bodies, an official source said on Friday. Civil rights and journalists' bodies on Wednesday expressed apprehension over the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, saying the provisions under it may fail the Right to Information (RTI) Act and end press freedom. "The (DPDP) Act has been passed by Parliament. Therefore no changes can be made now. Rules are being processed which can only be framed within the ambit of the Act," the source said. Government sources said the DPDP Act and draft rules under it have been framed after receiving thousands of inputs from multiple entities. About government assurance on frequently asked questions (FAQs), the source said it will be issued soon. Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Sunday said deletion of the proviso in the RTI Act that recognises citizens' right to information as being at par with that of legislators is "completely unwarranted", and urged IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw to pause, review, and repeal the amendment made to the original legislation of 2005. Vaishnaw had responded to Ramesh, saying that personal details that are subject to public disclosure under various laws will continue to be disclosed under the RTI Act after the implementation of the new data protection rule. Supreme Court lawyer and convenor of The Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Judicial Reforms (CJAR) Prashant Bhushan alleged that the Act bars and amends RTI Act to stop sharing of personal identifiable information without consent. According to the civil rights bodies, the provision not only kills the RTI Act but also discourages journalists and whistleblowers from exposing names of corrupt officials without their consent. According to civil rights bodies and activists, the DPDP Act removes provisions under the RTI Act that will enable government bodies to withhold information under the garb of personal information. Former High Court Justice A P Shah in an open letter to Attorney General of India on July 28 said Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act replaces the narrowly tailored exemption in Section 8(1)(j) with an overbroad provision for withholding information, and removing the "public interest" override. "This enables public authorities to deny information simply by classifying it as 'personal,' regardless of its public relevance or importance," he said. National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) Co-Convenor Anjali Bharadwaj last month said that RTI empowers people to get to know where their files are stuck, details of contractors associated with public projects, surveys to check beneficiaries under the scheme and to verify if they have received the benefits, etc. She said all these information will stop under the garb of restrictions imposed on seeking personal identifiable data under data protection rules. "There are no specific exemptions to journalists under the Act which was clearly mentioned under the previous drafts. There is a clear demand to add exemptions for journalists under the rules, or else press freedom will end," Bharadwaj said. She said the Act gives complete power to the government to control the Data Protection Board that has power to impose up to Rs 500 crore. "No government should be given as much discretion as this Act gives to them. At present, there is a BJP government; tomorrow, there may be some other government. The Act should not give excess power to any government to use the provisions at their sole discretion," Bharadwaj said. Press Club of India Vice-President Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty said journalist bodies have handed over a memorandum to Ministry of Electronics and IT Secretary that was signed by over 1,000 journalists expressing concern over the DPDP Act. "Earlier drafts had a line which said that journalistic work will be exempted but it was dropped. We are asking the government to bring in an amendment that is our primary demand and include that line because it will directly impact our works," Pisharoty said. She said there is hope that the ministry will listen to journalists' demands. "This is a rightful demand. This is something that we are very keen on and we are not going to step back. We also told the authorities that we should not be pushed to a situation where we come to the street or go looking for a legal option," Pisharoty said. The DPDP Act, 2023 is a comprehensive data privacy law to regulate the processing of digital personal data. Draft DPDP Rules, 2025, which aim to operationalise the Act, were published for public consultation, receiving 6,915 feedback/inputs from citizens and stakeholders, according to an official release. Civil rights bodies have expressed apprehension that the centre may selectively target media by misusing the power under the DPDP Act.
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC seeks centre's response on plea alleging sec 152 is unconstitutional
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) by alleging that it replaces the old sedition law under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A three-member bench headed by CJI BR Gavai asked the Centre to respond to the plea filed by SG Vombatkere, a retired Indian Army officer, who had earlier challenged the offence of sedition under Section 124A of IPC. The petition alleged Section 152 is a "repackaged sedition law". It further said though the language of the new provision is altered, its substantive content now criminalises more vague and broad categories of speech and expressions. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program "Section 152 criminalises a wide spectrum of expressive conduct, including those who 'purposely or knowingly' use words - spoken, written, electronic, symbolic, or financial - to 'excite or attempt to excite' secession, rebellion, or subversive activities," the plea argued.
