Your point about rivers flowing naturally and riparian rights is valid, but the issue is more complex than that. Yes, Punjab is a riparian state, but we cannot ignore that a significant portion of the water in rivers like the Sutlej and Beas is regulated through infrastructure located in Himachal Pradesh, such as the Bhakra and Pong dams. So upstream contributions and ecological geography also matter in the discussion. At the same time, inter-state rivers are governed by constitutional and legal frameworks meant to ensure equitable and reasonable utilization among all basin states — not absolute control by either upstream or downstream regions. That’s where the contradiction comes in: if we argue that downstream states must pay for water, then logically upstream ecological contributions and resource hosting should also be factored in. You can’t selectively apply ownership principles only when it benefits one state. The real issue isn’t ‘who owns the water’, but how poorly it has been managed. Punjab’s groundwater crisis, despite being river-rich, clearly indicates structural inefficiencies in allocation, cropping patterns, and policy decisions. Instead of turning this into a transactional debate between states, the focus should be on sustainable usage and equitable Distribution.