Punjabis unite against the Supreme Court conspiracy to steal Punjab's river waters via the SYL canal
How interesting the July 2004 Presidential reference to the Supreme Court asked a similar question whether the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 was in accordance with the Constitution of India?
Is Indian Supreme Court playing games?
Time for Punjab's leadership to unite against the Supreme Court conspiracy to steal Punjab's river waters via the SYL canal.
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - In an obvious conspiratorial, nay Chanakiyan, 'coincidence' the Indian Supreme Court, after sleeping for over seven months on the Presidential reference of July 22, 2004 on the SYL canal issue, has suddenly become inquisitive on Monday February 28, 2005, the day the Congress party won a majority in the Haryana state assembly election. The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court (Justices N. Santosh Hegde, Y.K. Sabharwal, Ms. Ruma Pal and S.N. Variava and headed by the Chief Justice, R.C. Lahoti) told the Union government last Monday - on February 28, 2005 - that it wants to know about the stand of the Union Government on the "legal competence" of the Punjab Government to enact the "Punjab Termination of Agreements Bill - 2004". All Punjabis better beware of these five scholors of Arthasastra, known for their anti-Punjab attitides, who make up the Supreme Court bench.Readers may recall that the "Punjab Termination of Agreements Bill - 2004". bill was passed unanimously by the Punjab State Assembly on July 12, 2004 - and signed into Law by the Punjab Governor the same day - which Law ONLY canceled the unequal agreements about Ravi/ Beas river waters (while retaining the "existing FREE use" clause) with neighboring non-riparian states of Rajasthan & Haryana. The Law does NOT interefere with the current theft of Punjab waters (free of charge) by non-riparian states of Rajasthan and Haryana. For a background on that magnificent July 12, 2004, legislative show of Punjabi unity, survival instinct and fair play please read Khalistan Calling dated July 14, 2004 by clicking at: /home/khalistancalling/2004/july14.aspx.
According to media reports (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050301/calendar.htm) the five-judge Constitutional Bench (Justices; N. Santosh Hegde, Y.K. Sabharwal, Ms. Ruma Pal and S.N. Variava) headed by Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti was hearing the four-point July 22, 2004, Presidential reference on "The Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004", last Monday (February 28, 2005) in which India's President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had sought the apex court's opinion whether a state was "competent" to enact a law abrogating its agreements with other states. The four-point Presidential reference, pertained to the constitution validity of the Punjab Termination Act-2004 passed by the state Assembly on July 12 last year, its validity vis-a-vis the Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1965 and the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, the Ravi-Beas water agreement and the SYL (Sutlej Yumna Link) canal issue
The five-judge Constitution Bench - acting very dumb - is reported to have told India's Attorney-General Milon Banerjee, last Monday, that, "Hopefully, you (Central government) will take a stand on legal competence of Punjab state to enact such a law." Attorney-General Milon Banerjee while saying that, "the Centeral government would watch what stand the Punjab Government took on the issue," sought more time to file a reply by the Union Government. On this the Bench observed that, "You will have to take a clear stand unless there is some political compulsion." The Punjab Government's standing counsel, Rupinder Singh Suri, submitted to the Supreme Court that, "pleadings on behalf of the state were complete."
Readers may recall that on July 22, 2004, Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, sought the Indian Supreme Court's advisory opinion on the Punjab Government's July 2004 decision to abrogate water-sharing agreements (read earlier 'understandings' made under duress with its neighbouring states) after the Manmohan Singh Union government sought a Presidential reference on this issue under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. Article 143 (1) enables the President to act on the aid and advice of the Cabinet to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on any issue relating to such matters which have wide ramifications. On Monday August 02, 2004, the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice, R.C. Lahoti, (and Justices N. Santosh Hegde, Y.K. Sabharwal, Ms. Ruma Pal and S.N. Variava) had issued notices to the Center and the States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir on the Presidential reference to the Supreme court. The interesting part is that the two non-riparian states of Haryana and Rajasthan, the beneficiaries of the Punjab river water had declined, after July 12, 2004, to move the Supreme Court to force Punjab to complete the SYL canal as they knew that they have no legal legs to stand on.
The Presidential reference was filed with the Supreme Court after the Central government had approached the apex court with an application for fresh directions on the construction of the incomplete Punjab section of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, ordered earlier (June 04, 2004) by a Sikh-hating two judge Supreme Court bench (Justice Ms. Ruma Pal and Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi) which observed that the decree did not relate to the, "quantum of water'' to be shared between the two States and that the issue of construction of the canal was not a 'water dispute' within the meaning of Article 262 (http://www.thehindu.com/2004/06/14/stories/2004061405660300.htm) of the Constitution.
The Presidential reference, made on July 22, 2004, under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution seeks the Supreme court's advisory opinion on the controversial legislation. The Presidential reference reads:-
1) Whether the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India;
2) Whether the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 and the provisions thereof are in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 and the Notification dated March 24, 1976 issued thereunder;
3) Whether the State of Punjab has validly terminated the agreement dated December 31, 1981 and all other agreements relating to the Ravi-Beas waters and is discharged from its obligation under the said agreement(s); and
4) Whether in view of the provisions of the Act, the State of Punjab is discharged from its obligations flowing from the Judgment and Decree dated January 15, 2002 and the Judgment and Order dated June 4, 2004, of the Supreme Court.
As the river waters is a state subject, not a central subject, under the Indian constitution, which document supercedes everything, this column supported the points raised in a July 29, 2004, petition to Indian President Kalam by the Chandigarh-based Punjab River Forum which had been critical of the Presidential reference. (Please see Khalistan Calling dated August 04, 2004. headlined, "In a deliberate omission the Manmohan Singh government's Presidential reference omits to ask the obvious questions from Supreme Court." /home/khalistancalling/2004/august04.aspx) The Punjab River Forum had requested the Indian President to ask the Supreme Court's advice on the following additional points among others:-
1) Whether Sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966 are in consonance with the provisions of the constitution and its effect on the government's order of March 1976?
2) Whether the verbatim incorporation of a political deal in the Interstate River Water Disputes Act 1956 is in accord with the constitution.
In point No. 2 above when the Punjab River Forum asked, "whether the verbatim incorporation of a political deal in the Interstate River Water Disputes Act 1956 is is in accord with the constitution," it is pointing towards the very first unequal 'agreement' on water sharing, which was affected in a hush-hush manner by the Union Irrigation minister and two Deputy Secretaries from Punjab and Rajasthan on January 29, 1955. This particular 'agreement' deprived the Punjab of more than one half of a river (8 MAF of water). It was kept a closely guarded secret for several decades. We believe the 'political deal' mentioned in Point No. 2 above also questions the following 'accords':- The 1985 Langowal-Rajiv Gandhi understanding between an Indian Prime minister and an illiterate private citizen, Sant Langowal; and, the unequal accord Prime minister Indira Gandhi forced an illiterate Punjab Chief minister Darbara Singh to sign with Haryana chief minister Bhajan Lal & Rajasthan Chief minister Shiv Charan Mathur on December 31, 1981. This man Bhajan Lal, who made a fool out of Punjab Chief minister Darbara Singh in 1981, is again set to become the Chief minister of non-riparian Haryana state, in a day or two, according to the March 01, 2005 Tribune. (http://www.khalistan-affairs.org/home/khalistancalling/2005/march01.aspx) Some coincidence!
In another coincidence the Rajasthan government has promoted, on Monday February 28, 2005, the Chairman of the Indira Gandhi Canal board and appointed him Chief Secretary. The new Chief Secretary, Anil Vaish, is an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer of the 1970 batch and is considered an expert on river waters. It seems as if the Rajasthan government is getting ready for a repeat of the January 29, 1955 and the December 31, 1981 'accords' which allotted more river water to non-riparian Rajasthan than was allowed to riparian water-short Punjab. The Rajasthan canal which is more like a river, named Indira Gandhi canal to spite the Sikhs, has been siphoning Punjab river water free of charge for over three decades.
In a yet another Chanakiyan coincidence the Supreme Court has admitted a petition against Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh, (again on Monday February 28, 2005) challenging his election to state Assembly from Patiala in 2002 on the ground of alleged corrupt practices and obtaining the services of two senior officers to ensure his victory. A Supreme Court bench (Mr Justice P.V. Reddi and Mr Justice A.K. Mathur) in a crude attempt at intimidation issued notice to Mr Amarinder Singh on a special leave petition (SLP) against the Punjab and Haryana High Court order rejecting the "statutory" election petition filed by Harkirat Singh, a voter from Patiala city. The court specifically asked whether it was a "statutory" petition, to which Harkirat Singh's counsel P S Mishra replied in the affirmative, saying that it was filed under the provisions of Representation of the People's Act. In his eight-point petition, Harkirat Singh has sought quashing of the election of Amarinder Singh for alleged corrupt practice, contending that the High Court had considered only two of the eight issues and that, "the impugned judgement of the High Court is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law and is liable to be set aside." http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050301/main8.htm
Despite the above effort at intimidation - 'Chanakiyan' coincidences - the Punjab state Chief Minister, Capt Amarinder Singh (who does not seem to realize that Punjab is being set up for an ambush by the Supreme Court) is reported to have said on Monday February 28, 2005, while addressing a state-level function (organised to mark the completion of three years of the Amrinder government in Punjab) that the installation of Congress party government in Haryana (with Bhajan Lal as Chief minister of Haryana possibly again repeating what he did to the then Punjab Chief Minister Darbara Singh in December 1981?) would pave the way to settle all outstanding issues of Punjab with it. Some hope! Capt Amarinder Singh was also reported to have said that, "while the issue pertaining to the completion of the SYL, canal would be settled as per the decision of the apex court where the matter was sub judice, the other issues pertaining to the transfer of Punjabi-speaking areas and Chandigarh to Punjab would be settled through negotiations with the party concerned and with the help of Congress-led UPA government at the Center." (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050301/punjab1.htm) We have no doubt that if this thinking of Captain Amrinder Singh continues he will end up giving an opportunity for a repeat performance by Bhajan Lal on the SYL canal issue.
Bracketing the 'dead' brick and mortar of Chandigarh with life giving waters of the Punjab rivers, which the SYL canal - if completed - is supposed to siphon to non-riparian Haryana, is short sighted thinking. Does Chief minister Amrinder Singh realize that the area of the Punjab, which lies under the foothills of Bhakra, Pandoh and Pong dams enclosed by Beas and Sutlej rivers, is the least canal irrigated basin area in spite of two large dams and glacial rivers source? Capacity of the only canal system serving the area namely Bisht Doab Canal has only 1408 cusec capacity (yes 1, 408 cusecs) for intensely cultivated 9,000 sq. km area and 6 million population. In comparison the capacity of Rajasthan Canal - read Indira Gandhi canal - serving less than two million people in distant Bikaner and Jaisalmer districts of non-riparian Rajasthan (500-800 km away) is 18,500 cusecs, which amount of water alone is enough to deplete all three dams. SYL canal too, if completed, is very large as it has a 15,000 cusec capacity and is intended to serve the region around Rohtak in south Haryana 600 km from Ravi-Beas source. (For a background on the 'Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004' and all you ever wanted to know about the proposed SYL canal issue, please click at: /home/khalistancalling/2004/july14.aspx and /home/khalistancalling/2004/june09.aspx)
Despite clear indications of what the Supreme Court is going to do with the Presidential reference the Punjab Chief minister, Captain Amrinder Singh, a scion of the Patiala family, keeps repeating by rote that, 'any Supreme Court decision will be final', 'the state will abide by any Supreme Court decision', 'I will obey any Supreme Court order etc., etc.' It is not his prerogative to issue carte blanch statements. That decision belongs to the people of the Punjab not to any one individual as water is a matter of life and death for millions of Punjabis and their future generations. Have the current Indian rulers - 'Cardboard Ceasers' all, who strut around in British-built palaces in New Delhi built on stolen Sikh Gurdwara land, forgotten that Punjabi patriots made sure that engineering work stopped on the SYL canal in the 1980's? India is already engaged in a 'War of the Dams' with Pakistan over the illegal Baghliar Dam on the River Chenab (read Khalistan Calling headlined, "Pakistani minister talks of war over Baglihar dam on the Chenab river. Are river dams India's Achilles` heel?" at: /home/khalistancalling/2005/feburary23.aspx) why does it want to start another war with the Sikhs over the SYL canal in Indian occupied Punjab?
The only way to thwart the conspiracy currently brewing against the Sikh Homeland of Punjab and its river waters in the Indian Supreme Court, Haryana and New Delhi is a repeat of the unity displayed on July 12, 2004, by the Punjab leadership when the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 was passed unanimously by the state assembly. We all should remember the Ethiopian proverb that, "When spider webs unite,they can tie up a lion." The unity of the Punjab leadership with the people of the Punjab, is needed more than ever now. Punjabis MUST be ready to come out in the streets to man morchas when the Supreme Court pulls a rabbit out of its hat to do Punjab in on the SYL canal issue based on - it will claim - on a fraudulently drafted Presidential reference of July 22, 2004, which has not asked the real questions.