Latest news with #PunjabTerminationofAgreementsAct
The Hindu
06-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
What is the Punjab-Haryana water-sharing dispute all about?
Watch: Explained | What is the Punjab-Haryana water-sharing dispute all about? Haryana and Punjab are at odds again over the Bhakra Beas Management Board's decision to release an extra 4,500 cusecs of water to Haryana. The two States have been in a long-standing dispute over the Ravi-Beas water since Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966. On Monday, Punjab government, led by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, convened a special Assembly session, passing a resolution to retain every drop of water from its share. The Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) regulates water from the Bhakra, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dams for Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Himachal Pradesh. On April 23, its committee decided to release 8,500 cusecs—7,000 to Haryana, 1,000 to Delhi, and 500 to Rajasthan. Punjab opposed the move, arguing that Haryana had already exceeded its annual allocation and capped its flow at 4,000 cusecs. Punjab's refusal has reignited long-standing tensions over riparian rights. Haryana insists BBMB decisions are binding, and Punjab's cap violates water-sharing agreements. Punjab counters that Haryana's overdraw threatens its pre-monsoon supply and breaches equitable use under the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act.
Time of India
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
In Punjab, ruling AAP blames Oppn for ‘historical blunders' on river water sharing.
1 2 Chandigarh: The Punjab govt in Monday's special Vidhan Sabha session accused successive Congress and BJP-SAD dispensations of compromising Punjab's water rights through historical "blunders" in river-sharing agreements. This came even as opposition parties supported the Aam Aadmi Party's resolution to reject Haryana's demand for additional water via the contentious Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal. Ministers and AAP MLAs took turns highlighting decisions made since Independence, including the construction of the SYL canal and clauses in the 1966 Reorganisation Act, which they claim burden Punjab unfairly while favouring non-riparian states such as Rajasthan. Water resources minister Tarunpreet Singh Sond cited former prime minister Indira Gandhi's 1982 inauguration of the SYL at Kapoori village as a turning point. "Congress leaders now pose as guardians of Punjab's rights, but they once bowed to the Centre's diktats," he said. "Punjab lost its capital and its river water under Congress rule." Sond also pointed to the role of the Shiromani Akali Dal, noting that Parkash Singh Badal's erstwhile SAD govt had issued the initial notification for the canal in 1978. He added that former CM Capt Amarinder Singh had attended the Kapoori event as a Congress MP. AAP members, including minister Aman Arora, also criticised clauses 78 and 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which they claim were never imposed on any other state. "Even before that, in 1950, the Centre unilaterally awarded water to Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir," Arora said. Finance minister Harpal Singh Cheema urged opposition parties to apologise to the people for "selling out Punjab's water." "Those who brought Punjab to this stage must accept accountability," he said. AAP demands royalty, legal push AAP MLAs demanded a comprehensive legal challenge to what they call discriminatory laws and decisions, including the Dam Safety Act and section 5 of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004. Party MLA Gurpreet Singh Banawali said Punjab deserved a share of Yamuna water if Rajasthan, a non-riparian state, could access Satluj waters. "The Congress and the SAD failed repeatedly to defend Punjab's interests. They owe the people an apology," he said. Minister Sond said Punjab should be paid for its water, much like states are compensated for mineral resources. "One cusec of water is worth more than ₹1 crore. If we were paid for our waters, Punjab wouldn't be in debt," he said. Oppn pushback muted but pointed Despite supporting the AAP govt's resolution, state's leader of opposition, Partap Singh Bajwa of the Congress, pushed back against the personal attacks. He said he would consider apologising if AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal also apologised for his previous comments in support of Haryana's water claims. "When we are ready to support the govt in its legal and political strategy, what is the need for political grandstanding?" Bajwa asked the govt. MSID:: 120905101 413 |
Time of India
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Pargat asks Mann to reject Dam Safety Act in special session
1 2 3 Jalandhar: Congress MLA Pargat Singh on Thursday asked CM Bhagwant Mann-led Punjab govt reject the Dam Safety Act when a special session of the Punjab assembly is convened to discuss the issue on Mondayu. He also asked the CM to call a meeting of experts for the effective defence of Punjab's rights. Additionally, he asked state govt to issue a white paper on the entire issue "so that the country could be told how Punjab is being discriminated against". Addressing a press conference on Thursday, Pargat pointed out that Mann was an MP when the Dam Safety Act was passed in the Lok Sabha in 2019, but he did not speak up against it even as it usurped the rights of states. "The act was passed in the Rajya Sabha in 2021, and after coming into power, his govt never said a word on it," Pargat said. "Now this act is being used against Punjab." He mentioned that for two days, Mann was accusing BJP of forcing decisions on Punjab through BBMB, but on Thursday morning, Manish Sisodia started questioning Congress. "AAP is doing drama when their own leaders in the past openly spoke against the interests of Punjab," Pargat said and then played three old statements of AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal, former AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sushil Gupta, and AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sandeep Pathak. "What these AAP leaders said in the past is happening now," he added. He claimed that Kejriwal's stand in the past rather strengthened the central govt's position on the issue. He is pushing the same line of excesses against Punjab, which were earlier done through the Punjab Reorganisation Act. He also praised Punjab officers for taking a firm and clear stand in the BBMB meetings, but questioned the political establishment. He also said sections 78, 79, and 80 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which went against Punjab, should also be discussed and challenged, and any weakness left in the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, should be fixed.
