Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Baglihar hydroelectric project on the Chenab is once again flooded by controversy. Differences between India and Pakistan over the project were referred to a neutral expert NE, as provided for by the arbitration clause of the Indus Treaty. After a year and half, the NE gave his findings in February 2007. By and large, he accepted the Indian explanations but recommended some minor design changes keeping Pakistan8217;s objections in mind. Pakistan was not wholly satisfied with the findings but having invoked the arbitration clause, it had to abide by the result. So why this fresh controversy?
Pakistan charges India with having unduly reduced the flows in the river. The initial one-time filling of a newly constructed reservoir is governed by specific provisions in the treaty. These provide for the filling of the reservoir by mutual discussion, failing which India can proceed to do so subject to two conditions: the filling in the case of projects on the Chenab must be done from June 21 to August 31; and the flow in the Chenab Main above Merala should not fall below 55000 cusec at any time. Pakistan says that these conditions have not been complied with.
Perhaps Pakistan did not realise this consequence. One does not know whether whether the minimum flow could have been maintained from some other source. That is not a requirement under the treaty, for the simple reason that the possibility of reduced or no flows because of the absence of low-level outlets is not recognised by it. Such a possibility ought to have been discussed in the Indus Commission. In fact, the best course would have been to have agreed at the Commission-level on the modalities of filling of the reservoir, as provided for in the treaty.
Though ominous sounding, this is unlikely to snowball into a major controversy. Though the word 8220;reservoir8221; is used, we are talking not about a large 8220;storage8221; but about 8220;pondage8221; for the purpose of turbine operations, i.e., a fairly small storage of limited capacity reduced still further by the NE8217;s recommendations to take care of Pakistan8217;s concerns. Filling such a small reservoir cannot take much time perhaps a week, and the reduction of flows, if any, can only be for a very short period perhaps only a day or two. Presumably the reservoir-filling has been completed. If so, whatever has happened is now over and cannot be undone.
It is also necessary to ensure that in the future, a way to reconcile these two inconsistent provisions in the treaty is found. The right course would surely be to provide low-level outlets.
What this new discord brings to the surface is underlying lower-riparian anxiety and insecurity about upper-riparian control. One can only hope that good sense will prevail and that the two sides will resolve the issue, either at the current meeting of the Indus Commission, or at the higher government level. But please leave the existing treaty alone.
The writer is an honorary research professor at the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi
