Examine whether linking issues in Centre–state and interstate negotiations strengthens or weakens cooperative federalism, using the example of the Kishau multipurpose project.

Cooperative federalism depends on the Centre and states resolving shared problems by consensus. Issue-linkage means tying consent on one matter to concessions on another, and it tests that consensus. Himachal Pradesh (HP) made its consent on the Kishau project depend on settling old Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) power arrears. The Supreme Court has now awarded HP 11,973 MU over 20 years [1]. Kishau shows that linkage can both unlock cooperation and put it at risk.

How linkage strengthened cooperation

• Broke a deadlock: The SC upheld HP's 7.19% share in 2011, but the share stayed unquantified for about 15 years. Linkage led Haryana to file an affidavit in the SC supporting HP [1].
• Right target: Haryana is both a BBMB partner [3] and a Kishau beneficiary [2]. The leverage worked because the two states' interests overlapped.
• Package deals: Clearing old grievances first made the six-state agreement more durable. Under that agreement the Centre bears about 90% of the cost [2], following the 2018 Lakhwar MoU model [4].
• Voice for upstream states: HP bears the submergence, while Delhi gains 25% of the water [2]. Linkage partly corrected this imbalance.

How linkage weakened cooperation

• Hostage-taking: UP, Rajasthan and Delhi owed no BBMB dues [3], yet their water project stalled [2].
• More veto points: A project that needs six signatures [2] becomes easy to block if every state attaches old claims. This sets a precedent for other Yamuna projects.
• Uneven reach: Punjab, a major debtor, is not a party to Kishau [2]. Its dues still depended on the court, not on cooperation.
• Bargaining replaces trust: Transactional politics erodes the trust that joint bodies were meant to build. The BBMB, for example, was created under Section 79, Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 [5][3].
• Delayed public goods: Irrigation for 97,000 ha and 1,476 MU of hydropower wait on a dispute between states [2].

Way forward

• Set deadlines for carrying out SC decrees in interstate disputes, and publish an annual BBMB report on power delivered to HP.
• Hold package negotiations through the Inter-State Council (Art. 263) and the Zonal Councils, not through one state holding up a project.
• Release the Centre's 90% funding only once old dues are settled and updated displacement and seismic studies are published.

Overall, issue-linkage is a symptom of weak dispute-resolution institutions, not a cure. When it is targeted and ends in consensus, it strengthens cooperative federalism; when used routinely, it breaks it apart. A formal system for settling grievances would let states cooperate without holding shared projects hostage, which supports equitable water security under SDG 6.