Watering down Pak tantrums

The Indus Water Treaty is biased in Pakistan8217;s favour and leaves room for misinterpretation. Time, India insisted on its review

The Indus Waters Treaty IWT between India and Pakistan 1960 for sharing the Indus waters is much advertised as a model for sharing the waters of international rivers, for having survived two wars between the two countries, thanks to its claimed resilience. But the inequitable distribution of allocating only 20 of Indus waters to India and the rest to Pakistan in spite of India having about 50 of the catchment area contributing to the flows thus favouring Pakistan, the operational provisions leaving room for misinterpretation and such other deficiencies observed over the past four decades, have sabotaged the very objective of the treaty 8212; that of optimum utilisation and development of the water resources of the basin.

The treaty has perpetuated the dispute between the two countries on the Indus waters to suit the interests of many international groups. Raising the bogey of IWT violations, Pakistan has succeeded in stalling or delaying Indian projects, about 30 in all, with the result that out of 8769 MW of estimated hydro-potential from that part of the basin flows which India could utilise, only about 1500 MW could be tapped by India so far.

The ongoing 450 MW Baglihar Project across the Chenab in J038;K, which has been dragged to the World Bank for arbitration, is a case in point as to how the treaty provisions could be misinterpreted to suit our neighbour8217;s arguments.

According to provisions in IWT , apart from the use of the allotted Eastern Rivers The Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, India has also the right to the use of the waters of the Western Rivers The Indus, Jhelum and Chenab allocated to Pakistan for hydropower generation subject to certain conditions including the storage and release of water downstream.

The Baglihar project, across the Chenab, about 120 km from border, is located upstream of the existing Salal Project and is one such project being executed by India conforming to these provisions. However, in spite of furnishing all data about the project features and discussing in several meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission PIC and secretary level meetings, Pakistan said the design of the plant did not conform to the criteria laid down in IWT.

India for its part has been clarifying the treaty has not imposed any ban on the height of the dam; it provides for pondage adequate to meet the power load variations and to take due account of the requirement of secondary power other than firm power; there is no restriction on the freeboard though there is limit to the storage to be retained; any flooding action would first affect Indian areas and also the India8217;s Salal project before affecting Pakistan, and fear on that account is unfounded; provision of sluice spillways is a technology driven need for any dam; and the heavy silt flows in the river reaching Pakistan would be reduced under 8216;with a dam8217; condition rather than 8216;without8217;.

Ignoring the clarifications, Pakistan unilaterally took up the matter with the World Bank, charging India with the flouting of IWT and seeking the appointment of a Neutral Expert NE to examine the issues. It never tried to substantiate its objections before approaching the Bank. However, its real intentions got exposed when during the meeting between the two countries it stated its willingness to resolve the differences bilaterally, provided India stopped all construction activities at the site. India already had the experience of a similar Pakistani offer in the Tulbul project.

Story continues below this ad

Eighteen years and numerous meetings later, Pakistan is still to agree to the project proposals, thereby stalling the benefits to the people of J038;K. Hence India informed the World Bank that Pakistan8217;s recourse was premature and the Bank should not appoint the NE at this stage. However, ignoring India8217;s contentions, the expert NE was appointed by the Bank. Both countries have submitted their views in writing to the NE and have made oral presentations at the hearings in London in May. One more chance to present the case will be given in the meeting scheduled in Paris in October and the verdict is expected in November this year. Till then should we keep quiet?

Past events have shown that India has to be cautious about Pakistan8217;s intentions; it would resort to manipulation yet again. Since the treaty is already biased in Pakistan8217;s favour and leaves room for misinterpretation, it is time India pre-empted Pakistan8217;s moves by insisting on review of the treaty.

Such a review would enable enhanced Indus water availability to various Indian states, thus correcting the wrongs already inflicted on India. We have to remain prepared to face Pakistan8217;s tantrums. Today Baglihar has been dragged for World Bank arbitration. Next it would be the Kishenganga project. The existing treaty would be cleverly used by Pakistan to question and stall every Indian project on Western Rivers to sabotage developments in J038;K. The warning shots have already been fired by our neighbour and it is now our turn to strike.

The writer is ex-member- secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation 038; Drainage, and ex-consultant, Planning Commission, Water Resourcesmenon8212;msrediffmail.com