KARACHI, March 20: Speakers at a seminar underlined the need for resolving the water issue within the country and with neighbours on the basis of internationally accepted upper and lower riparian rights, as resource control was becoming primary driving force in international relations.
The seminar was organized to launch water and energy resources programme of the international relations department of Karachi University. The “River water sharing problem between India and Pakistan: Case study of the Indus Water Treaty” by Shaista Tabassum was the focal point.
Tracing the genesis of water problem between Pakistan and India, Mr Elahi Bukhsh Soomro, former speaker of the National Assembly and member of Pakistan’s negotiating team with World Bank, said that Pakistan had accepted the partition of Punjab without realizing that head works were given to India. He said that when the treaty was being negotiated it was not apprehended that India might construct such dams on these rivers. By constructing the dam, India had violated the treaty, he said, adding that it would have serious negative bearing on Pakistan’s agriculture and ecology.
Mr Soomro also emphasized the need for settling the domestic water dispute which was seriously eroding national integrity. The water dispute, he said, had to be settled on the principles of upper and lower riparian rights.
Renowned economist Qaisar Bengali unfolding international scenario with a zest to control resources said that India was persisting with Baghliar dam project in violation of the treaty because it knew Pakistan could not afford to go for war and it would not get support because of the “submissiveness to the interests of Americans”.
Criticizing Islamabad’s stand that it would remain neutral in case Iran was attacked; Mr Bengali questioned the wisdom of such a policy and asked whether the same would be Pakistan’s stand in case of China or India was attacked. He was of the view that as long as Pakistan’s foreign policy remained attached to Washington, India would get away with Baghliar.
He also expressed concern over looming problem with Afghanistan if and when it constructed a dam on River Kabul which would add to water losses.
He said that at the time of partition of Punjab, Pakistani side in which Sindh was not represented was in a hurry to secure the rights of Pakistani Punjab and loss of water from the eastern rivers.
Referring to her study, Shaista Tabassum highlighted the country’s failure to approach the water issue in a comprehensive manner as India and Pakistan remained bogged down in talks on the Baghlihar dam project. The study provided a new dimension to the partition of Punjab and the Kashmir issue between Pakistan and India.
The study also made it obvious that Indus Water Treaty was aimed more at making up for the losses of Punjab from three eastern rivers. Had it not been the case, the water sharing dispute between Punjab and Sindh would not have polarized society.
Speakers said that Pakistan’s opposition to Baghlihar and other projects, which India had planned on the rivers flowing from Kashmir, was legally valid in view of the terms and condition of the Indus Waters Treaty. They also expressed apprehension that India might deny the required water when it was much needed, as on April 1, 1948, India had stopped the supply of water from the canals on its side.
Ms Tabassum, in her study, discussed that the first challenge to the treaty was the construction of Salad dam on China River by India. The accord provided that India would not make any further alteration in the features of the design of the plan. It agreed to reduce the height of the dam and gave a commitment that all of the sluice gates would be closed within a year of the completion of the project.
