May 11, 2005	Wednesday	Rabi-us-Sani 2, 1426

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

LAHORE, May 10: The third round of Kishanganga project talks collapsed on Tuesday with the Indian side refusing to accept the issue as a ‘dispute’ between the two sides and Pakistan insisting on the word. According to insiders, differences also cropped up on the modalities of the ruling clause of the Indus Basin Treaty under which a solution to the problem has to be found.

The Indian side insisted that clause 8 ruled the talks and required both sides to demonstrate ‘cooperative spirit’, exchange data and sit together to solve problems. The Pakistani side asserted that the dam issue had already assumed the proportion of a dispute during the past 10 years. Pakistan raised its objections in mid-nineties when India had expressed its intention to start the project. Besides, two formal meetings were held in the last six months. India had already provided partial data about the project and Pakistan formalized all its objections.

The dam issue, Pakistan believes, has become a ‘dispute’ and should be ruled by clause 9 of the Indus Basin Treaty that legally binds both sides to solve ‘disputes’ and provides a further mechanism in case of failure.

The Indian side repeatedly said that the invoking of clause 9 was premature and refused to accept Pakistan’s stance, triggering collapse of the talks, the sources said. Briefing newsmen after the talks, Indus Basin Waters commissioners from both sides said the talks had ended without achieving any ‘convergence of views’.

Commissioners Jamaat Ali Shah and D.K. Mehta said that though both had agreed to disagree on all six points, they had decided to hold another meeting at the end of this month in New Delhi.

The two avoided calling the meeting a complete failure, saying that the decision to continue discussing Pakistan’s objections would not justify such a tag for this round of talks.

Both commissioners also said that a Pakistan team would visit the Kishanganga dam site in June or July this year and an Indian team would subsequently pay a visit to inspect the Neelum-Jehlum project being built by Pakistan.

Mr Shah said that high hopes had preceded all such meetings and the one just concluded was no exception.

There were expectations to ‘achieve convergence of view’, but it did not turn out to be the case. There were many points on which the Indian side wanted more time to get the relevant information and consult people back home before finalizing them. Pakistan agreed to extend the talks and the deadline, but the Indian side had been told in no uncertain terms that it had to be done within the set time-limit (July 15).

Mr Mehta denied that the India side had employed delaying tactics by not showing up with fully prepared data about Pakistan’s objections. “India did present required data but Pakistani side raised subsequent questions which needed more detailed information. That is why the Indian side sought time and was granted the same,” he said.

He also denied delaying conclusion on the grounds that if Pakistan’s objections were ultimately found to be valid and India had to finally adjust the design, the sooner India got to the conclusion better it would be for it. That’s why there was no use for the Indian side to play the delaying game, he maintained.

About the possibility of suspension of work as a goodwill gesture on the part of India, Mr Mehta said the Indus Basin Water Treaty did not have any provision to suspend work pending solution to any crisis.