
📅 May 13, 2025, Post 1: 💧 Tensions Beneath the Sutlej: The Punjab–Haryana Water Dispute Reignites |High Quality Mains Essay | Prelims MCQs
💧 Tensions Beneath the Sutlej: The Punjab–Haryana Water Dispute Reignites

NATIONAL HERO — PETAL 001
🗓️ May 13, 2025
📚 GS Paper 2 – Federalism / Inter-State Relations / Water Resources
🌊 Intro Whisper
When rivers flow through borders drawn in ink,
Even water turns political — and peace turns brittle.
🔹 Key Highlights
- Recent Conflict: Punjab restricted Bhakra dam water to Haryana, prompting intervention by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
- Contempt Warning: Court indicated contempt proceedings if Punjab defies BBMB orders again.
- Historic Project: The Bhakra-Nangal Dam, India’s tallest straight gravity dam, is central to water distribution in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi.
- Water Allocation (2025): Punjab – 5.512 MAF | Haryana – 2.987 MAF.
- Punjab’s Allegation: Claims Haryana has already used 104% of its allocation and accused it of overconsumption.
- Judicial Observation: High Court labeled Punjab’s interference “unbelievable” and a threat to cooperative governance.
- Central Mediation Attempt: Union Home Secretary suggested a temporary water borrowing model, but Punjab boycotted the meeting citing procedural flaws.
📘 Concept Explainer: Bhakra-Nangal Project & BBMB
🏗️ About the Bhakra-Nangal Dam
- Built across Sutlej River in Himachal Pradesh, near Bhakra village.
- Forms Gobind Sagar Reservoir.
- Asia’s 2nd tallest dam (after Tehri) and India’s tallest straight gravity dam.
- Inaugurated by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1963 — called the “temple of modern India”.
- Cost: ₹245.28 crore (then a massive investment).
- Operated by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).
🧩 BBMB & Water Allocation
- A central statutory body managing water releases from Bhakra, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dams.
- Annual allocations based on rainfall and reservoir levels.
- Mandated to ensure equitable sharing among Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi.
🧭 The Federal Challenge: Rights, Rivers & Resentments
Water-sharing disputes are not new — Cauvery (TN vs. Karnataka), Krishna (AP vs. Telangana), and now Bhakra (Punjab vs. Haryana) reflect deeper structural issues:
- Inter-state asymmetry in geography and rainfall.
- Politicization of water in election cycles.
- Lack of binding central enforcement of judicial orders.
- Climate change stress on natural flows and reservoir levels.
In this case:
- Punjab claims judicious use and humanitarian generosity.
- Haryana accuses Punjab of denying constitutional rights.
🏛️ Legal & Institutional Dimensions
- High Court Orders: Punjab must not interfere with BBMB; any obstruction violates court’s restraint orders.
- BBMB Authority: Legally empowered to decide and release water; state-level protests cannot override it.
- Contempt Risk: Cabinet-level defiance of a judicial directive can invite constitutional action.
🚨 Impact & Implications
- Reservoir Levels Falling: Ranjit Sagar & Pong dams below 2024 levels, raising alarm for dry season supply.
- Urban & Rural Water Shortages: Likely in parts of Punjab, Haryana, and NCR.
- National Security Link: Rising water tensions can spill into inter-community and inter-party clashes.
🗺️ GS Paper Mapping
Paper | Theme | Relevance |
---|---|---|
GS-2 | Federalism | Inter-State Water Disputes, Judicial Enforcement |
GS-2 | Governance | Role of BBMB, Contempt of Court |
GS-3 | Resources | Water Management, Climate Vulnerability |
✨ A Thought Spark — by IAS Monk
A river flows not to divide,
But to nourish all who wait beside.
But when power blocks the banks with fear,
The current turns from clear to unclear.
High Quality Mains Essay For Practice :
Word Limit 1000-1200
River Disputes in India — Perennial Gridlock or Is There a Way Out?
🌊 Introduction: When Rivers Become Borders
Rivers are meant to flow — nurturing civilizations, quenching fields, and binding communities. But in India, they often become fault lines — dividing states, igniting political passions, and dragging courts into the murky waters of distribution. From the Cauvery in the South to the Sutlej in the North, inter-state river disputes are among the most complex and recurring governance challenges in India. These disputes test not only legal systems but also the spirit of cooperative federalism.
The question today is not whether river disputes exist — but whether India is doomed to perpetual stalemate, or if a practical and just resolution framework is possible.
🧭 Why River Disputes Are So Persistent in India
India’s geography, demography, and political federalism together form a perfect storm of conflict:
1. Rivers That Cross States
Almost all major rivers — Ganga, Yamuna, Krishna, Cauvery, Sutlej — flow across multiple state boundaries. While nature flows freely, political maps do not.
2. Diverse Water Needs
Different states have competing priorities:
- Punjab wants water for wheat
- Tamil Nadu for rice
- Karnataka for urban needs
- Kerala for hydropower
This divergence makes negotiation harder.
3. Climate Vulnerability
Erratic monsoons, falling groundwater, and shrinking glaciers have made river volumes uncertain, intensifying the scramble during lean years.
4. Political Posturing
Rivers are emotionally and politically potent symbols. Politicians often use them to mobilize regional identity, especially during elections.
5. Judicial and Constitutional Gaps
Although the Constitution allows Parliament to make laws on inter-state rivers (Entry 56, Union List), most decisions are litigated for decades, with Supreme Court orders facing implementation hurdles.
🚧 Major River Disputes: Snapshots of a National Pattern
🏞️ Cauvery Dispute (Karnataka vs Tamil Nadu vs Kerala vs Puducherry)
- Over 150 years old
- Supreme Court judgments in 1991, 2007, 2018
- Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) formed in 2018, but tensions remain
- Even today, rainfall triggers street-level protests in Bengaluru and Chennai
🏞️ Krishna-Godavari (Telangana vs Andhra Pradesh vs Maharashtra vs Karnataka)
- Disputes on dam usage, catchment control, and new irrigation projects
- Tribunal decisions pending since the 1960s
- Creation of Telangana added a new layer of administrative complexity
🏞️ Sutlej-Yamuna Link (Punjab vs Haryana)
- Punjab’s refusal to construct the canal for water transfer
- Multiple court directives ignored
- Recent protests and defiance of BBMB rulings show fragility of judicial enforcement
🏞️ Mahanadi (Odisha vs Chhattisgarh)
- Odisha accuses Chhattisgarh of reducing downstream flow via upstream barrages
- Matter pending before a tribunal; no resolution in sight
⚖️ Legal and Institutional Framework: Half-built Bridges
India has attempted to build legal mechanisms to resolve disputes:
1. Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956
- Allows creation of tribunals to resolve disputes
- Problem: Tribunals take decades to deliver awards
- Worse: No clarity on implementation once verdict is delivered
2. Supreme Court Intervention
- States approach the apex court, but the court’s role is limited to interpreting law, not enforcing political agreements
3. Central Water Commission (CWC) & BBMB
- Technical advisory bodies; lack binding powers
- Seen as being dominated by central interests
4. 2019 Amendment Proposal (Pending)
- Aims to dissolve existing tribunals and form a single standing body
- Yet to be enacted; faces political resistance
🌱 The Way Forward: Building a Cooperative Water Culture
India cannot afford to treat water as a matter of state pride or political provocation. A sustainable, legal, and ethical water-sharing culture must emerge. The following reforms are critical:
✅ 1. Constitutional Clarity with Binding Enforcement
- Parliament must enact a National Framework Law on water sharing
- Disputes must have timelines for verdicts and enforcement, like election cases
✅ 2. Permanent Water Dispute Resolution Authority
- A standing institutional tribunal, staffed with judicial, technical, and ecological experts
- Must issue binding interim awards to avoid dry seasons without resolution
✅ 3. Use of Satellite and Digital Monitoring
- Real-time data on rainfall, reservoir levels, and flow volumes should be made public
- Transparency can defuse false claims and enable scientific dispute management
✅ 4. Water Treaties Between States
- Much like international agreements, states should negotiate fixed treaties with revision windows, rather than annual wrangling
- Encourage give-and-take models, like sharing during surplus and borrowing during deficit
✅ 5. Promoting Groundwater Recharge and Conservation
- Reduce inter-state dependence by empowering states to manage their own aquifers
- Rainwater harvesting and basin-level integrated planning must be incentivized
✅ 6. Depoliticization of River Water as an Electoral Issue
- EC and judiciary must monitor river water disputes during election seasons
- False water claims and regional fear-mongering should invite strict penalties
🌍 Conclusion: Rivers Are National, Not Just Regional
India’s river disputes are not just technical or legal — they are deeply emotional, cultural, and political. They reflect a nation still learning to co-manage shared resources in a fragmented polity. But the answer lies not in damming emotions — but in channeling them into trust.
When states rise above territorialism and see rivers not as assets, but as arteries of collective life, a new water ethic will be born — one that allows India to truly flow together.
🧠 Closing Quote
“The rivers of India do not know politics — only people do. Let us learn from the water: to flow, to give, and to nourish all.” — IAS Monk
Target IAS-26: Daily MCQs :
📌 Prelims Practice MCQs
Topic:
MCQ 1: Type – “How many of the above statements are correct?”
Consider the following statements regarding inter-state river water disputes in India:
1.Most major rivers in India flow across multiple states, causing overlapping claims.
2.The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 allows the Union Government to enforce tribunal decisions.
3.Climate change is one of the emerging reasons behind worsening river disputes.
4.The Supreme Court has unlimited power to enforce river water sharing between states.
How many of the above statements are correct?
A) Only two
B) Only three
C) All four
D) Only one
🌀 Didn’t get it? Click here (▸) for the Correct Answer & Explanation
✅ Correct Answer: A) Only two
🧠 Explanation:
•1) ✅ Correct – Most rivers are inter-state.
•2) ❌ Incorrect – The 1956 Act allows tribunals to resolve, but not enforce verdicts directly.
•3) ✅ Correct – Climate variability (monsoon failure, glacier retreat) worsens disputes.
•4) ❌ Incorrect – The Supreme Court interprets, but cannot enforce political sharing.
MCQ 2: Type – Two Statements
Consider the following two statements:
1.The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) was established in 2018 after a Supreme Court judgment.
2.All river-sharing disputes in India are resolved only by tribunals created under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
A) Only 1 is correct
B) Only 2 is correct
C) Both are correct
D) Neither is correct
🌀 Didn’t get it? Click here (▸) for the Correct Answer & Explanation
✅ Correct Answer: A) Only 1 is correct
🧠 Explanation:
•1) Correct – CWMA was formed following the Supreme Court verdict in 2018.
•2) Incorrect – River disputes are resolved under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, not the Environment Protection Act.
MCQ 3: Type – “Which of the above statements is/are correct?”
Consider the following statements:
1.Entry 56 of the Union List allows Parliament to make laws on inter-state rivers.
2.Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal dispute is between Punjab and Himachal Pradesh.
3.Tribunals set up under the 1956 Act have a fixed timeline for delivering awards.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
A) 1 and 2 only
B) 2 and 3 only
C) 1 only
D) 1 and 3 only
🌀 Didn’t get it? Click here (▸) for the Correct Answer & Explanation
✅ Correct Answer: C) 1 only
🧠 Explanation:
•1) Correct – Parliament has legislative authority over inter-state rivers via Entry 56.
•2) Incorrect – SYL dispute is between Punjab and Haryana.
•3) Incorrect – The Act does not specify strict time limits, leading to long delays.
MCQ 4: Type – Direct Fact-Based
Which of the following correctly describes the purpose of the proposed 2019 Amendment to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act?
A) To allow private sector participation in river management
B) To set up a single standing tribunal for all inter-state water disputes
C) To let the Supreme Court directly arbitrate water sharing between states
D) To transfer river water management to municipalities
🌀 Didn’t get it? Click here (▸) for the Correct Answer & Explanation.
✅ Correct Answer: B) To set up a single standing tribunal for all inter-state water disputes
🧠 Explanation:
•The 2019 Amendment proposes a permanent dispute resolution body to replace multiple tribunals, aiming to speed up decisions and ensure uniform enforcement.