INSIGHT

Water Crisis in cost, crowding small and marginal farm-

ers out of the race for groundwater ex-

Punjab and Haryana traction. NASA’s Gravity Recovery and

Climate Experiment (GRACE) has reported

Politics of Sutlej–Yamuna Link Canal that “beneath northern India’s wheat,

paddy and barley fields, the groundwater
has been disappearing” (Dhaliwal 2016).
There is apprehension that large parts of
Sucha Singh Gill the region may soon turn into desert
unless radical measures are taken to

T
After the Green Revolution, he whole of north-west India, check groundwater depletion.
Punjab and Haryana have become especially Punjab, Haryana and This has created a situation of inten-
Rajasthan, are facing an acute sified water conflict between Punjab
water-scarce states due to the
water shortage. This crisis has intensi- and Haryana, as demonstrated by the
introduction of paddy as the main fied after the Green Revolution. Roughly, Punjab Termination of Agreements Act,
kharif crop, a massive increase in 80% of the total demand for water 2004, the Punjab Sutlej–Yamuna Link
cropping intensity, and rapid comes from agriculture. The rest is used Canal Land (Transfer of Property
in domestic consumption, industry and Rights) Bill, 2016 and the partial demo-
urbanisation and industrialisation.
commerce, and the power sector. Water lition of the Sutlej–Yamuna Link (SYL)
However, the real issue—of use in agriculture has increased many at several places in Punjab. The 2004
reverting to sustainable cropping times over due to the cropping intensity act intends to terminate all agreements
patterns and improving water-use and the introduction of water-intensive with other states on water-sharing with-
crops such as rice, sugar cane and horti- out affecting their current water use.
efficiency—remains unaddressed.
culture. Similarly, domestic, commer- The 2016 bill proposes to give land back
An improvement of 15% to 20% in cial and industrial demand has incre- to the original owners after demolition
water-use efficiency from the ased following rapid urbanisation, acc- of the SYL Canal.
present level can provide each elerating commercial and industrial ac- This article examines the emerging
tivities, and increased thermal power water crisis in the region and the back-
state with the increased water
generation. This has put tremendous ground and genesis of the water conflict
share it is demanding. pressure on the limited water resources between Punjab and Haryana.
in the region.
The region’s water resources consist of Seeds of the Conflict
surface water, mainly supplied by peren- Under colonial British rule, the waters of
nial rivers originating from Himalayan the rivers in the Indus basin were used
glaciers, and groundwater resources acc- in Punjab, which extended its territory
umulated over centuries. The widening from Baluchistan (now in Pakistan) in
gap between demand and supply has the west to Delhi (River Yamuna) in the
caused states to compete for larger shares east. In between, there were several
of surface water. Individual users are princely states which were required to
exploiting increasing amounts of ground- pay seigniorage in case they happened
water resources as there is no regulation to be non-riparian states. The govern-
of its use. Free electricity in Punjab and ment of British India applied the riparian
electricity at highly concessional rates in doctrine for river water use. The con-
Haryana has increased the pressure on struction of the Sirhind Canal from the
groundwater resources. Available data on River Sutlej, which took off from Ropar,
groundwater indicate that the number of was intended to serve the (British) Punjab
dark blocks (where extraction exceeds territory. To draw water from the Sirhind
recharge) has increased and water is Canal, the non-riparian states of Patiala
being extracted or mined from aquifers and Bikaner were subjected to seignior-
as deep as 250 feet to 400 feet, with an age charges in accordance with the pro-
Sucha Singh Gill ([email protected]) average level of depth at 128 feet for visions of the Sirhind Canal Agreement
is on the faculty of the Centre for Research Punjab as a whole (Ghuman 2016). Hary- of 1873 (Dhillon 1983).
in Rural and Industrial Development, ana faces a similar situation. Farmers are The situation changed drastically
Chandigarh.
deepening their bore wells at tremendous after partition in 1947 divided British
Economic & Political Weekly EPW decemBER 10, 2016 vol lI no 50 37
INSIGHT

India into India and Pakistan. The Indus basin, in India and Pakistan. This has Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation
and its tributaries acquired internation- created greater reliance on ground- Act, 1966 reads:
al status, with India becoming an upper water resources through power-operated Notwithstanding anything contained in the
riparian state and Pakistan a lower ripari- tube wells as the rainfall in this region Act but subject to provisions of Sections 79
an state. Water rights between the two is not adequate for paddy growing. and 80, all rights and liabilities of the exist-
countries were settled through the Indus Urbanisation and expansion of industrial ing State of Punjab in relation to Bhakra–
Nangal Project and Beas Project shall, on the
Waters Treaty of 1960, mediated by the and commercial activity have also
appointed day, be the rights and liabilities
World Bank. In accordance with this increased demand for water from non- of the successor States in such proportion as
treaty, the waters of the Sutlej, Ravi and agricultural sectors. As a result, water may be fixed, and subject to such adjustments
Beas were allocated to India, and the stress was experienced on both sides of as may be made, by agreement entered into
waters of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab the Indus basin, while some pockets by the said States after consultation with the
Central Government or, if no such agree-
were allocated to Pakistan. Water for where groundwater is brackish experi-
ment is entered into within two years of the
irrigation was denied to Jammu and enced waterlogging.1 appointed day, as the Central Government
Kashmir (J&K) in India (upper riparian) Before the Indus Waters Treaty was may by order determine having regard to
from the river waters allocated to Pakistan, signed, the water of Sutlej was com- purpose of the Projects:
and water from the rivers allocated to mitted for use under the Bhakra–Nangal Provided that the order so made by the
Central Government may be varied by any
India was denied to areas of Pakistan Project in areas that came to form the
subsequent agreement entered into by the
that formed the lower riparian region of Indian Punjab. The waters of the Ravi and successor states after consultation with the
these rivers. While negotiating the Indus Beas rivers were mainly unused. The pre- Central Government.
Waters Treaty, India had shown the partition use of water was 3.13 million
Ghaggar River as part of the Indus basin acre feet (MAF), out of the total water Provision 78(3) of the act made not
and also shown parts of Rajasthan and of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers of only water but also power generated
present-day Haryana belonging to the 19.28 MAF in the 1921–45 flow series. from this water sharable between the
Indus basin (Dhillon 1983). This treaty Taking into consideration the pre-partition successor states, especially from the Beas
was signed in the spirit of cooperation use (3.13 MAF) and losses through the and Sutlej River projects. The Govern-
and friendship, and not on riparian Madhopur–Beas Link (0.30 MAF), the ment of Haryana began to claim 4.8 MAF
principles (Indus Waters Treaty 1960). unused water was estimated at 15.85 MAF. out of erstwhile Punjab’s 7.2 MAF share
India agreed to pay £6,20,60,000 to An interstate conference held in Delhi of surplus Ravi–Beas waters. This claim
Pakistan to redesign canals to carry on 29 January 1955 decided to allocate was based on the irrigation requirements
water supply from rivers allocated to this water as listed in Table 1. of Haryana on the Bhakra pattern of
Pakistan to India. Thus, the Indus Waters Table 1: Distribution of Punjab River Waters in
irrigation supplies to Haryana. This was
Treaty 1960 substituted the principle of 1955 between States contested by the Punjab government,
riparian use with the principle of cooper- State Allocation of which showed a deficit of 2.34 MAF on
Water (in MAF)
ation between sovereign countries. Later, the basis of the Bhakra pattern of irriga-
Erstwhile Punjab 5.9
this principle for water distribution was PEPSU* (merged with Punjab in 1956) 1.3
tion requirements in the state. The
extended to water distribution between J&K 0.65 Bhakra pattern of irrigation stands for
the Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan 8.0 two crops a year on irrigated land
Rajasthan and Delhi and the riparian Total 15.85 requiring water as per irrigation recom-
principle was abandoned. * Patiala and East Punjab States Union. mended by the agriculture department
Source: Paul Singh Dhillon (1983: 23).
The Indus Waters Treaty was negotiated of the Government of Punjab on the
and signed at a time when water scarcity Out of Punjab’s share, 0.2 MAF was existing crops sown in the command
was not yet acute in India and Pakistan. allocated to Delhi for drinking purposes. area. The matter could not be resolved
Cropping intensity was low, and paddy This remains unchanged even today. until 1975, either through mutual agree-
as a major crop had not yet been intro- The allocations to Rajasthan and J&K also ment between Punjab and Haryana or
duced in the Indus basin region. In the remain uncontested by Punjab and Har- through the intervention of the central
Indian Punjab (including Haryana), crop- yana. Thus, the conflict mainly relates to government (Dhillon 1983). With pres-
ping intensity was 126% in 1960–61, the distribution of erstwhile Punjab sure from the Haryana government, the
nearly the same (125%) as in Pakistan waters between the two successor states central government issued an order on
Punjab. This increased to 185% in the of Punjab and Haryana. 24 March 1976, which stated that “on
Indian Punjab and 145% in Pakistan completion of Beas Project the state of
Punjab in 2002–03 (Mustafa and Khan Serious Differences Haryana will get 3.5 MAF and the state
2005). Cropping intensity has further With the creation of Haryana in 1966 as of Punjab the remaining quantity not
increased in both the Punjabs in recent one of the successor states of erstwhile exceeding 3.5 MAF.” This was not accept-
times, largely because of the introduc- Punjab, the surplus water of the Ravi able to Punjab and the state filed an
tion of early maturing dwarf varieties of and Beas rivers became a subject of appeal in the Supreme Court for annul-
crops, particularly rice, in the Indus controversy between Punjab and Haryana. ment of the order. Haryana, meanwhile,
38 decemBER 10, 2016 vol lI no 50 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 INSIGHT

filed an appeal in the Supreme Court for Serious differences remain between into barren land and reaching a water
implementation of this order. the Punjab and Haryana governments crisis like that in Latur, experts have been
It is pertinent to recall that the over the quantity of water to be shared suggesting a change in cropping pattern
24 March 1976 order on Ravi–Beas surplus and the medium through which it can be to one that is sustainable in the long run
waters was issued when the country was shared. The Punjab view has been that and in consonance with the resource en-
passing through the Emergency period Haryana’s legitimate share was 1.9 MAF dowment in the region (Johl Committee I
(1975–77). The Akali Dal had launched on the basis of the 1921–45 series, rather 1986; Johl Committee II 2002).
an agitation against the Emergency than the 3.5 MAF allotted by the central
Table 2: Demand and Supply of Water in Punjab
while Haryana politicians, especially government order of 1976 and the agree- and Haryana (million acre feet)
Bansi Lal, were very close to then Prime ment of 1981. This view has been com- Demand (For Irrigation) Supply

Minister Indira Gandhi. Gandhi re- pletely ignored by the central govern- Punjab 50* Sutlej River 11.50
Haryana 45 Ravi–Beas Rivers 7.72
turned to power in 1980, and arranged a ment and the issue has not been decided
Ghaggar River 2.1
meeting of chief ministers of Punjab, in a “just and equitable” way as required
Seasonal torrents 1.1
Haryana and Rajasthan in December by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
Pre-partition use of
1981, pushing through an agreement on If the Punjab government’s contention water by Punjab 1.98
water-sharing, keeping Haryana’s share were to be accepted on a just and equita- Yamuna River 6.00
at 3.5 MAF and Punjab’s at 4.22 MAF by ble basis, there would be no need for the Groundwater 4.50
revising the assessment of water flow in construction of the SYL Canal. Haryana’s Total 95 34.80
the Ravi and Beas rivers on the 1921–60 share of 1.9 MAF water can be carried A M Singal, former Haryana chief engineer, corroborated
the supply figure in 1988.
series instead of the earlier series based through the Bhakra Canal taking off * This is now assessed as 52 MAF by Punjab Agricultural
on 1921–45 flows of water (Agreement from Nangal Dam and the Sirhind Feeder University experts.
Source: Paul Singh Dhillon (1988).
1981). Both states withdrew their cases Canal, which takes off from the Harike
from the Supreme Court following this Barrage (the place of confluence of the Ignoring warnings and suggestions,
agreement. Beas and Sutlej rivers). the governments of Punjab and Haryana
It is to be noted that the Indus Waters This is the right time for an independent have failed to develop a viable design
Treaty did not uphold the riparian prin- tribunal, involving the governments of and programme for a cropping pattern
ciple of water distribution among coun- Punjab and Haryana, to assess objectively that requires less water and does not con-
tries and resorted to a treaty based on the availability and flow of water in flict with the natural resource endowment
promotion of friendship and optimal use the Ravi and Beas rivers and to divide of the region. In both states, farmers are
of water. The agreement of 1981 was based the surplus water between Punjab and encouraged to install more tube wells2
on arbitration by the Prime Minister on Haryana on a just and equitable basis. and are provided electricity free of cost
the basis of the Punjab Reorganisation (in Punjab) or at highly subsidised rates
Act, 1966, which empowered the central Low Water-use Efficiency (in Haryana). The water-use efficiency
government to arbitrate between the The real issue in the Punjab–Haryana continues to be very low. Water resources
disputing successor states of Punjab and water dispute is the acute scarcity of water expert Paul Singh Dhillon observed that
Haryana. It is a different matter that the for irrigation. Punjab and Haryana engi- “the seepage component of transit losses
then Punjab Chief Minister Darbara Singh, neers estimated that against the total is of the order of 45% to 17% in the main
from the Congress party, was forced by availability of roughly 35 MAF in Punjab canals, 8% in distributaries and 20% in
the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and Haryana, the demand for irrigation the field canals.” He further commented
to accept her decision on the agreement. itself is 95 MAF. That leaves a gap of 60 on irrigation methods leading to water
The SYL Canal was to be constructed MAF (Table 2) estimated on the basis of wastage. As much as 20% to 30% of the
within two years in accordance with this the Bhakra canal irrigation pattern for a water applied to the field goes waste
agreement (clause iv) to carry Haryana’s double-crop system and the cropping in- beyond the root zone of the plants. He
share of water from the Punjab rivers to tensity of the early 1980s, which was wrote, “Improved on-farm water man-
Haryana territory. This could not be dominated by wheat–paddy rotation. agement practices are the answer to this
achieved, however, due to disturbed This has led to an acute water shortage problem” (Dhillon 1988: 35–36). Instead
conditions in the Punjab, especially after and water stress in the region, signified of improving water transit systems and
1982, when the state was placed under by the declining groundwater table. The changing water management practices
President’s Rule. Again, when the Rajiv– shortage of canal water is compensated by at the field level, the governments of
Longowal Accord was signed in 1984, a excessive draw of groundwater resourc- Punjab and Haryana have been concen-
clause was inserted that the SYL Canal es through energised tube wells, causing trating on practices encouraging ineffi-
would be completed by 15 August 1985. In depletion of groundwater from the shal- cient water transit and use. At the
view of the non-implementation of this low layer and leading farmers to deepen same time, to hide their own failure, the
accord, the SYL Canal has remained in- tube-well bores and use submersible governments of the day have been con-
complete and no water has flowed pumps (Singh 2007; Nehra 2016). To centrating on procuring more water from
through it to this day. prevent Punjab and Haryana turning the sharable pool. This has intensified
Economic & Political Weekly EPW decemBER 10, 2016 vol lI no 50 39
INSIGHT

the conflict and created bitterness among Akali Dal–Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) the SYL Canal. In the wake of a letter
the people of the two states. It goes against combine, the Indian National Congress written on 4 July 1978 by the Punjab gov-
the spirit of cooperative federalism. The (INC) and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)—have ernment demanding `3 crore for con-
ruling party (Akali Dal) mobilised their declared that they will not allow a drop struction of the SYL Canal, the Haryana
supporters to damage the SYL Canal at of water to flow to Haryana via the SYL government issued a cheque of `1 crore,
several places in the Punjab area within a Canal. The Punjab assembly passed a bill which was accepted by the Punjab gov-
day of the passing of the 2016 bill. When on 14 March 2016 to denotify the land ernment on 31 March 1979. An Akali–
the media highlighted this development, acquired from the farmers so that the SYL Janata government was at the helm at
the Supreme Court intervened and got Canal can be filled with earth to block the time, under the same chief minister
the damage stopped. any flow of water through it. This can be who has today got the Punjab assembly
understood in terms of the assembly to pass a bill denotifying the land under
Political Opportunism elections due in Punjab in early 2017. the SYL Canal. The construction of the
Water-sharing between Punjab and Har- This stand has also united all the political SYL Canal was inaugurated by the then
yana has been on the agenda of all politi- parties of Haryana—the BJP, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi at Kapoori
cal parties in the wake of the Supreme National Lok Dal and Haryana unit of village in Patiala district on 11 April 1982.
Court hearing on the Presidential refer- the INC—in demanding water through the The present Punjab Pradesh Congress
ence on the issue. The issue before the SYL Canal. The Supreme Court stayed the Committee (PPCC) chief was a member of
Supreme Court has been the validity of process of filling the canal in Punjab by Parliament from Patiala and was present
the Punjab Termination of Agreements appointing the home secretary, Govern- on the occasion. Later, he was also res-
Act, 2004. This act empowers the Punjab ment of India, Punjab chief secretary and ponsible for getting the Punjab Termi-
government to terminate all previous the director general of police, Punjab, as nation of Agreements Act, 2004 passed.
agreements on river water-sharing with receivers to control the filling of the canal. The major part of the canal was completed
the neighbouring states for water not This has exposed the opportunism of after the Rajiv–Longowal Accord, which
used till 2004. The act allows use of leaders from various parties on this issue. stated in clause 9 that “Punjab, Haryana
Punjab river waters by other states that Historical record shows that two noti- and Rajasthan will continue to get water
used the water before the enactment of fications were issued by the Govern- not less than what they are using from
this act. Politicians from all the major ment of Punjab on 20 February 1978 for Ravi–Beas system on 01.07.1985” (9.1).
parties in Punjab today—the Shiromani acquisition of land for construction of The claims of Punjab and Haryana for

The Problem of Caste

Edited by
SATISH DESHPANDE
Caste is one of the oldest concerns of the social sciences in India that continues to be relevant even today.
The general perception about caste is that it was an outdated concept until it was revived by colonial policies and
promoted by vested interests and electoral politics after independence. This hegemonic perception changed irrevocably
in the 1990s after the controversial reservations for the Other Backward Classes recommended by the Mandal Commission,
revealing it to be a belief of only a privileged upper caste minority – for the vast majority of Indians caste continued
to be a crucial determinant of life opportunities.
This volume collects significant writings spanning seven decades, three generations and several disciplines, and discusses
Pp xi + 425 Rs 595 established perspectives in relation to emergent concerns, disciplinary responses ranging from sociology to law, the
ISBN 978-81-250-5501-3 relationship between caste and class, the interplay between caste and politics, old and new challenges in law and policy,
2014 emergent research areas and post-Mandal innovations in caste studies.
Authors: Satish Deshpande • Irawati Karve • M N Srinivas • Dipankar Gupta • André Béteille • Rajni Kothari • Kumkum Roy • Sukhadeo Thorat
• Katherine S Newman • Marc Galanter • Sundar Sarukkai • Gopal Guru • D L Sheth • Anand Chakravarti • Carol Upadhya • Ashwini Deshpande
• Meena Gopal • Baldev Raj Nayar • Gail Omvedt • Mohan Ram • I P Desai • K Balagopal • Sudha Pai • Anand Teltumbde • Surinder S Jodhka
• Ghanshyam Shah • Susie Tharu • M Madhava Prasad • Rekha Pappu • K Satyanarayana • Padmanabh Samarendra • Mary E John • Uma Chakravarti
• Prem Chowdhry • V Geetha • Sharmila Rege • S Anandhi • J Jeyaranjan • Rajan Krishnan • Rekha Raj • Kancha Ilaiah • Aditya Nigam • M S S Pandian

Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd

www.orientblackswan.com
Mumbai • Chennai • New Delhi • Kolkata • Bengaluru • Bhubaneshwar • Ernakulam • Guwahati • Jaipur • Lucknow • Patna • Chandigarh • Hyderabad
Contact: [email protected]
40 decemBER 10, 2016 vol lI no 50 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 INSIGHT

the remaining waters were to be lose no opportunity in setting the farm- use is not on the agenda of the govern-
referred to a tribunal presided over by a ers of the two states against each other, ments and political parties in the region.
Supreme Court judge, and the decisions but they have never given serious thought
notes
of the tribunal were binding on both to improving water-use efficiency. An im-
1 Waterlogging has been observed in areas that
parties. Clause 9.3 further stated that provement of 15% to 20% in water-use depend heavily on canal irrigation. Due to
“the construction of the SYL Canal shall efficiency from the present level can pro- brackish subsoil water, tube wells are not insta-
lled for the extraction of groundwater. The
continue. The canal shall be completed vide each state with the increased water area under waterlogging is a small proportion
by 15 August 1986.” When the major part share they are demanding.3 of the total area under cultivation, where the
water table is rising because of heavy canal ir-
of construction of the canal was under- To sum up, both Punjab and Haryana rigation and non-use of groundwater that is
taken, the present PPCC chief and Punjab need to rethink their position on distri- brackish and unfit for irrigation.
2 In 2016, Punjab will be adding 2.5 lakh tube
AAP convenor were ministers in the bution of surplus waters of the Ravi and wells and giving fresh connections and elec-
Punjab cabinet led by the Akali Dal. This Beas rivers. Even if, hypothetically, no tricity free of cost. In Haryana too, electricity is
supplied to farmers at highly concessional
reveals the opportunism of all the major water is given to any other state, Punjab rates. Punjab’s electricity subsidy bill now crosses
political parties and their leaders. They will remain water stressed as long as the `5,500 crore and Haryana’s subsidy bill to
farmers is even higher.
have been changing their position on present cropping pattern and existing 3 Part of this section has appeared in an article
this issue and raising the passions of the irrigation technology continue. Similarly, by the writer titled “SYL Canal: Mired in Political
masses to gain political power, especially even if Haryana gets more water from Opportunism,” the Tribune, 5 April 2016.

now, when the Punjab assembly elec- Punjab in accordance with the order of
tions are imminent. 1976 and the agreement of 1981, its References
The opportunism of the political lead- requirements will not be met. The major Agreement (1981): “Agreement Regarding Alloca-
tion of Surplus Flow of the River Ravi and Beds
ership in both Punjab and Haryana is issue remains how we use the available Over and Above the Pre-partition Uses and
further exposed by the inefficient water water and how quickly we adopt the Implementation of the Sutlej–Yamuna Link
Canal,” 31 December, Tale of Two Rivers: Ravi
use. In both states, canals which carry sustainable cropping patterns. The blame Beas Water Dispute, Paul Singh Dhillon (1983),
water from the rivers and their distribu- for neglecting this issue has to be shared Dhillon Publishers, Chandigarh, pp 88–92.
Dhaliwal, Sarabjit (2016): “Do More to Depend on
taries, are not cleaned regularly and their by all those at the helm of affairs in Punjab,” the Tribune, Chandigarh, 1 May.
banks are not repaired, causing occasional Punjab and Haryana. The issue of river Dhillon, Paul Singh (1983): “Agreement Regarding
breaches and damage to crops by flooding water-sharing in a scarcity situation Allocation of Surplus Flow of the River Ravi
and Beas Over and Above the Pre-Partition Uses
of fields. A lot of water is wasted along cannot be settled on the basis of water and Implementation of the Sutlej–Yamuna Link
the way. The tail-end farmers do not get requirements of different states, but Canal, 31 December 1981,” Tale of Two Rivers:
Ravi–Beas Water Dispute, Chandigarh: Dhillon
the required amount of water. Conse- on the formula of sharing assets and Publishers, pp 88–92.
quently, water use efficiency is very low. liability in accordance with the Punjab — (1988): Water Resources Development and
Management in North-West India, Chandigarh:
Planning Commission reports (2012) Reorganisation Act of 1966 in a 60:40 CRRID Publication.
based on field studies underline the low ratio bet ween Punjab and Haryana and Ghuman, R S (2016): “Why Punjab Must Save Under-
ground Water,” the Tribune, Chandigarh, 1 May.
water use efficiency of major and medium covering the Sutlej, Ravi, Beas and Indus Waters Treaty (1960): www.worldbank.org.
irrigation projects—ranging from 15% to Yamuna (which was available to Punjab Johl Committee I (1986): “Report of the Expert
62%—in India. The water-use efficiency before the creation of Haryana) rivers Committee on Diversification of Agriculture in
Punjab,” Chandigarh: Government of Punjab.
level in canal irrigation in Punjab is also as suggested by Amarinder Singh (2016). Johl Committee II (2002): “Agricultural Production
very low, according to a study of the This appears a just and equitable solu- Pattern Adjustment Programme in Punjab for
Productivity Growth: A Report,” Chandigarh:
Ranjit Sagar Dam’s command area. The tion in the present situation. It has been Government of Punjab.
conveyance efficiency of this project is avoided in all notifications on this issue Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (1976):
“Notification, 24 March 1976,” New Delhi:
51% against an all-India level of 52%. since 1976 and by various tribunals set reproduced in Dhillon (1983).
The on-farm efficiency level is 65%. This up for the purpose. Mustafa, Iqbal and Farukh M Khan (2005): “Agrar-
highlights an overall water-use efficiency The Government of India released a ian Economies of Two Punjabs,” South Asian
Journal, Volume 2, No 8, pp 78–90.
of 33%, not surprising since the techno- National Water Policy in 2013, urging Nehra, Kulwant Singh (2016): “Implications of
logy is more than 100 years old and states to take appropriate measures on Subsidised Power Supply for Sustainable Agri-
culture in Haryana,” Man and Development,
canals and their distributaries are poorly water issues. Each state was asked to set Vol 38, No 1, pp 50–70.
maintained. Farmers use flooding as a up a water regulatory authority to regu- Planning Commission (2012): Twelfth Five Year Plan
Vol I, New Delhi: Government of India, p 185.
method of irrigating their fields. The late the use of groundwater resources. “Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966,” https://indian-
story is no different in the case of other This has been completely ignored by kanoon.org/doc/933499/
irrigation projects in the state as well as states. The Punjab government decided Singal, A M (1988): “Water Resource Development
and Management in North-West India: Some
in the neighbouring state of Haryana. In not to accept this policy. At the same time, Issues—Another View” in Paul Singh Dhillon
urban areas too, water is wasted through the state has not formulated its own water (1988), pp 97–98.
Singh, Amarinder (2016): “I Would Take the Same
leaking pipes, uninterrupted flow in policy to regulate water use and main- Decision Today,” the Tribune, Chandigarh,
public taps, washing of cars in streets and tain water quality for irrigation or drink- 30 March.
Singh, Karam (2007): Punjab: The Dance of Water
uncontrolled irrigation of lawns. Politi- ing purposes. It seems that saving water Table, the Punjab Farmers Commission, Govern-
cians ruling both Punjab and Haryana or putting the existing water to efficient ment of Punjab, Chandigarh.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW decemBER 10, 2016 vol lI no 50 41