Punjab-Haryana Water Row Highlights Deeper Fault Lines in India’s Federal Politics, In a fresh flare-up of inter-state tensions, Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini has accused the Punjab government of engaging in “petty politics” over the long-contested issue of water sharing. At the center of the storm lies the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal—an infrastructure project conceived to facilitate equitable distribution of river water between neighboring states but long derailed by political resistance and regional rivalry.
Speaking after a cabinet meeting in Chandigarh, Saini strongly criticized the recent resolution passed by the Punjab Legislative Assembly, which once again challenged the implementation of the SYL canal and denied Haryana its legally sanctioned share of water. “Water is a national asset, a natural resource that belongs to all,” Saini stated, calling the resolution “unethical” and “against the spirit of Indian federalism.”
His remarks tap into a historical conflict rooted in the 1966 reorganization of Punjab, which led to the formation of Haryana. Since then, Haryana has argued that it is being denied its rightful share of water, despite multiple legal verdicts and central government directives supporting its claim. The Supreme Court of India, the highest constitutional court in the country, has also ruled in favor of Haryana’s demand, yet political reluctance and social opposition in Punjab have prevented the canal’s construction.
Saini’s criticism extended beyond political lines, suggesting a moral failure on the part of Punjab’s Aam Aadmi Party-led government. He invoked Sikh religious teachings, stating that denying water to fellow citizens contradicted the egalitarian values espoused by the ten Sikh Gurus. “Punjab must respect the verdict of the court and the legacy of the Gurus. It must release water without conditions,” he said.
The implications of this standoff are significant not just for Haryana’s parched districts, where water scarcity has become a persistent issue, but for broader questions of governance in India’s federal structure. Saini warned that repeated defiance of judicial and constitutional mandates, such as Punjab’s refusal to adhere to central institutions like the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), was setting a dangerous precedent.
Beyond the SYL dispute, the Haryana government also used the cabinet meeting to roll out a series of major policy decisions aimed at promoting transparency, supporting religious and rural institutions, and overhauling outdated systems.
In a move welcomed by social and religious organizations, the cabinet approved a complete waiver of stamp duty on land purchased or donated for new cow shelters. The state’s Cow Service Commission had previously requested the waiver to encourage more community-led animal welfare initiatives. The exemption will only apply under strict conditions: the land must be used solely for cow protection purposes, with no commercial or private benefit accruing to trustees or society members. This measure not only signals administrative support for Hindu religious practices, which place high value on cow welfare, but also aligns with a larger political narrative that fuses governance with cultural preservation.
In another landmark decision, the Haryana government scrapped the British-era 1930 Municipal Accounting Code and adopted a modern, accrual-based double-entry accounting system titled the Haryana Municipal Accounting Code 2025. The antiquated colonial framework had long been criticized for lacking transparency and failing to adapt to technological advances and contemporary urban governance needs. The new code is expected to align local financial management with current national standards, enabling municipalities to maintain more accurate, real-time records and even raise development funds from capital markets.
“Modernizing the accounting system is not just a bureaucratic update; it’s a step towards greater accountability, better fiscal planning, and ultimately, more robust urban infrastructure,” Saini remarked.
Finally, the cabinet amended its existing land acquisition policy, increasing compensation for landowners in alignment with national legislation. The updated clause replaces the previous “double the collector rate” provision with a more generous “four times the collector rate” formula, ensuring that farmers and private landowners receive fairer returns when their lands are procured for public or development purposes. This revision aims to reduce litigation and improve the trust deficit between state authorities and rural communities, often aggravated by perceived inequities in compensation and land use conversion.
These decisions underscore Saini’s broader strategy to present his government as both reform-oriented and culturally rooted—positioning Haryana as a state striving for both progress and preservation.
Yet, the water dispute looms large as a symbol of the challenges that remain unresolved. At stake is not merely a share of a river but the credibility of India’s legal system, the integrity of its federal principles, and the resilience of its democratic consensus. As climate change amplifies water shortages across South Asia, inter-state cooperation on water management will become ever more critical—and contentious.
Whether the Haryana-Punjab deadlock becomes a cautionary tale or a turning point will depend not just on court verdicts and cabinet resolutions but on political will and public trust.
This article was auto-generated from a news release and edited for global publication.
#IndiaPolitics #WaterCrisis #Federalism #UrbanGovernance #ClimateJustice
