August 18, 2003	Monday	Jumadi-us-Sani 19, 1424

It has been more than two month since the 89th meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) was concluded in New Delhi, but the government has not announced as yet its line of action over the controversial issue of Baglihar project.

This inordinate delay in deciding a vital issue for our agriculture-based economy is creating apprehension among concerned circles and giving an impression as if we have put our hand up over the issue of the Baglihar?

Pakistan had raised objections on the Baglihar hydroelectric project four years ago and since then the issue has been a sticking point in annual meetings of the Indus Commission. In the 88th meeting which was held in Islamabad last year, Pakistan had indicated that it would be asking for neutral experts if its demand of the visit to the project site was not met.

Then Pakistan served India with a notice for appointment of neutral experts in early May this year. The issue of neutral observers came up during the talks between Pakistan and Indian officials at the 89th annual meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission held in New Delhi during May 28-30.

At this meeting India maintained that Pakistan could not seek appointment of neutral observers until the technical aspects of the project were discussed between the two sides. The insistence by the Indian side not to appoint neutral experts is seen by observers as yet another attempt to buy time for completing the project.

The Indus Water Treaty gives both countries the third party option in case of a deadlock over any issue. Article IX of the treaty provides for settling disputes through neutral observers or arbitration if they cannot be resolved between the two commissioners.

Article IX (2) (a) of the treaty further states that if the neutral expert reaches the conclusion that there is a dispute then a court of arbitration shall be set up upon agreement between the two parties to do so, or at the request of either party if that party feels that the dispute is unlikely to be resolved by negotiations or mediation, or if it feels after one month that the other party is unduly delaying negotiations.

While Pakistan is still working out modalities of appointing or not appointing neutral experts for arbitration in the controversial Baglihar hydro power project, India is smoothing the civil work progress into final stages of completion. Reports suggest that 90 per cent of the civil work of the project has already been completed.

It would be interesting to note that the prime minister had approved the summery of appointing a neutral expert and relevant ministries and organizations were also assigned various responsibilities. Further, the Attorney-General of Pakistan had finalized a panel of lawyers while NESPAK and Wapda were preparing technical and engineering reports.

Then surprisingly, the ministry of water and power was stopped by the higher authorities on the request of the foreign office, from issuing statements on Pakistan’s dispute with India over the controversial construction of Baglihar Power Project on the plea that it could be interpreted negatively in the bilateral talks between the two sides on the issue of Kashmir, which are under way on the pressure of uncle Sam. Therefore Pakistan decided not to take up the issue of controversial 450-megawatt Baglihar hydropower project at the international forum for the time being.

It is very disappointing that for the sake of Kashmir the government has opted to become mum over a genuine issue whereas India, on the other hand, has continuously accusing us of promoting cross-boarder terrorism.

Until recently we have been trying to talk to India on equal status but now by giving India an upper hand by not allowing ourself even to protest over the issue of water which is a matter of life and death for our farmers, it is not clear on whose agenda we are working?

It would be interesting to note that next meeting of the PIC, which, as per the provisions of the treaty, must meet once a year to finalize its annual report which is then submitted to the respective state governments, would be held in May next year. By that time first phase of the project, which is likely to be inaugurated in December 2004, would have almost been completed. The question arises, would we be able then to stop India by robbing our legitimate share of water, when the project would have been completed?

Factually, India has been dragging its feet over the Baglihar issue since May 1999, when Pakistan first objected to its design. It has postponed almost half a dozen times inspection tours of the project site that Pakistan has requested under the treaty. The delaying tactics by India are none other then a time-taking strategy.

Pakistan believes that the Baglihar project, which provides for submerged gated-spillways, is in breach of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. These spillways would allow India to increase the storage capacity far beyond what is allowed to India under the pact. Pakistan’s main concern is that the structure would provide India the capability to manipulate flow of water to Pakistan’s disadvantage. Therefore prevailing acute water shortages in the Indus basin could be one of the serious adverse consequences for Pakistan.

Pakistan alleges violation of treaty in the design of the Baglihar project on Chenab, whereas India denies it and says the technical design of the run-of-the-river is well within the provisions of the treaty. Pakistan has been asking India for the last three years to arrange a visit of its technical experts to the Indian-held Kashmir to verify the structure of Baglihar power project but the denial of India to allow Pakistani experts to the site proves that there is some thing black in the bottom.

Under the Indus Water Treaty, Pakistan has the right of unrestricted use of the western tributaries of the Indus river system, namely the Jhelum, Chenab and the Indus, while India gets similar rights over the Beas, Sutlej and the Ravi, the eastern tributaries.

The Indus Water Treaty was signed under the good offices of the World Bank at Karachi by Mohammad Ayub Khan, the then President of Pakistan, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Indian Prime Minister and Mr. W.A.B. Illif of the World Bank on 19th September, 1960. The treaty however is effective from 1st April 1960.

Under the treaty, India is bound to supply the requisite data of its all hydel projects including small plants, run-of-river plants and storage work to Pakistan. Every month, the data with respect to the flows in, and utilization of, the waters of the rivers of Indus Basin needs to be exchanged between the two countries and every year before 30th November both countries also exchange data of irrigated area from the western rivers.

It seems that Indian intervention over the nature of the historic treaty has gone to a large extreme. The Indus river has always flowed from the Himalayas through India towards Pakistan, and to discontinue the decades old agreed share of Pakistan by blocking and diverting it could prove to be not only an ecologically and socially disastrous but also become a cause of armed conflict between the traditional foes.

This is no surprise that the treaty has survived for over four decades, despite wars and diplomatic stand-offs between the two countries. Most of the differences between India and Pakistan are at political level and for that reason common people from both sides should not suffer. Such action by India will not lead both the countries anywhere.

India seems to take patience of Pakistan as a weakness. Therefore the government of Pakistan needs to take a firm stance on this critical issue and must not compromise even on a drop of its western rivers’ water what to talk about a daily loss of 7000 cusecs.

The government needs to distinguish between a political (Kashmir) and social (water) issue and must not compromise over the later for the sake of the former in any case. We have been shouting at India over Kashmir since our independence in 1947 and can go on shouting for all time to come but an early settlement of the Baglihar issue is essential to refrain India for taking such defying attempts to alter the water flow of our western rivers that is life blood for us.

At a time when we are contemplating for increasing our water resources for meeting rapidly growing agricultural and other domestic requirements, a daily loss of 7000 cusec of water would be outrageous for which coming generations would not forgive us.