Answer

The water-sharing dispute between Punjab and Haryana, particularly concerning the Ravi-Beas river waters, reflects the inherent challenges in India’s cooperative federalism. While the Constitution mandates cooperation between states, the persistent conflicts in resource-sharing demonstrate the limitations of the cooperative federalism framework. 

Limitations of Cooperative Federalism in Water Disputes

• Failure of the River Water Tribunal System: The River Water Dispute Tribunals (RWDTs), established to resolve conflicts, often lead to protracted litigation and delayed decisions, as seen in the Punjab-Haryana water dispute.
• Inadequate Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: There is no robust, mechanical framework to address water-sharing disputes at the state level, resulting in frequent breakdowns of cooperation.
  For example: The Punjab Water Act (2004) led to Punjab’s refusal to implement the SYL Canal construction, worsening the dispute and delaying resolution.
• Unequal Development and Resource Distribution: Regional resource imbalances often lead to water-sharing conflicts, with states like Punjab viewing water as a state-specific resource due to agricultural reliance.
  For example: Haryana, with a significantly smaller share of water resources, argues that the Punjab government is not complying with the terms of the 1981 agreement on water-sharing.
• Impact of Federalism’s Top-Down Approach: Centralized decision-making in federalism often hinders states from resolving regional disputes independently, with central intervention complicating cooperation.
  For example: The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (1956) and the subsequent creation of tribunals fail to address the underlying political dynamics, leading to inconsistent decisions on resource-sharing.

Examples of Cooperative Federalism in Other Contexts

• Sharing of Electricity Resources Between States: Cooperative federalism works well in sectors like electricity and telecommunication, where states have more defined roles and better collaborative frameworks.
• GST and Tax Reforms: Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a positive example of cooperative federalism. It brought together states with varied interests under a single framework for the benefit of all.
  For example: The GST Council, comprising both central and state finance ministers, has successfully implemented uniform tax rates despite differing political interests.
• National River Linking Project (NRLP): The NRLP aims to resolve inter-state water disputes through collaboration, though it faces challenges. It seeks to link rivers in a way that benefits states facing water shortages.
  For example: The interlinking of the Ken-Betwa rivers promises to provide water to drought-prone regions of Bundelkhand through interstate cooperation.
• India’s National Health Mission (NHM): The NHM fosters cooperation between the centre and states for equitable healthcare delivery, even in resource-poor regions.
• Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA): MGNREGA demonstrates the success of cooperative federalism by ensuring rural development through decentralized decision-making.
  For example: The MGNREGA scheme has empowered local governments in rural India to create jobs while receiving funds and guidance from the central government.
  

Measures to Strengthen Cooperative Federalism in Water Sharing

• Establish Clear and Enforceable Agreements: To avoid prolonged disputes, legal frameworks should be developed that clearly define the terms of resource-sharing and incorporate strong enforcement mechanisms.
  For example: A more structured version of the SYL Canal agreement with enforceable terms can help resolve the Punjab-Haryana issue.
• Regular Inter-State Dialogue Mechanisms: Regular bilateral dialogues and joint forums should be held to address water-sharing issues, with both political and technical experts involved.
  For example: The Mekong River Commission has successfully managed water-sharing disputes between Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam through regular, mediated discussions.
• Implement a National Water Policy with Flexibility:  India needs a comprehensive national water policy that can adapt to regional needs while respecting the autonomy of states.
  For example: A revised national water policy could help resolve the conflicts over water-sharing in Punjab, Haryana, and neighboring states.
• Strengthen the Role of River Basin Organisations: River Basin Organizations (RBOs) can coordinate water distribution and management across states within a river basin, ensuring a more unified approach to water-sharing.
  For example: The Godavari River Basin Authority could play a greater role in managing resources in the Godavari basin, which covers multiple states.
• Enhanced Role of Technology in Monitoring: The use of data and technology for real-time monitoring of water levels and flows can help reduce disputes by providing an accurate, neutral basis for decision-making.
  For example: The India-Water Portal could be upgraded to offer real-time monitoring of river water usage and distribution to ensure transparency in water-sharing agreements.

While the water-sharing dispute between Punjab and Haryana highlights the limitations of cooperative federalism in India, it also underscores the need for structural reforms in resource management. A balanced approach involving legal clarity, regular dialogue, and technological intervention will help foster a more cooperative federal system that can address such issues without escalating tensions.

DOWNLOAD PDF