Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Pakistan, it appears, has made up its mind to seek World Bank intervention over the Baglihar project issue. While it is within its rights to do so, it may not be the wisest of moves. Not only will this be the first time in the 45-year history of the Indus Water Treaty when a dispute is being referred to the Bank 8212; which had incidentally brokered the treaty 8212; it means giving up on an opportunity to address issues of a technical nature within the bilateral format. Indeed, forward movement on this front through mutual negotiations would have signalled a new maturity in Indo-Pak relations.
A useful principle to keep in mind in matters of this kind is the one that Eugene R. Black, the then president of the World Bank, had highlighted during negotiations over the Indus Water Treaty. 8220;There is,8221; he noted, 8220;a need to treat water development as a common project that is functional, and not political, in nature8230; undertaken separately from the political issues with which India and Pakistan are confronted.8221; He believed that the Indus dispute could most realistically be solved if the functional aspects of the disagreement were negotiated apart from political considerations, with the question of utilising the waters of the Indus Basin considered without the accompanying baggage of historic rights or allocations. Today, there is a need to abide by that useful separation. Pakistan8217;s response to the Baglihar project issue appears to be dictated by its political phobias and general distrust of India8217;s intentions. It believes that the 450 MW-hydel project on the Chenab would affect flows into Pakistan and voices the concern that India could use the dam to cause droughts or floods on its side of the Punjab. This, of course, has no relation with reality. On the contrary, despite the innumerable tensions that have marked Indo-Pak relations, the Indus Water Treaty has continued to govern riparian matters between the two countries.
