Talks between India and Pakistan, on the construction of the Baglihar Dam, recently broke down in New Delhi after 4 days of intense discussions. Currently both countries are planning counter steps to protect their interests while trying to keep the dialogue route open. The stakes are high to resolve this issue and it is important to highlight why remaining engaged through diplomatic channels remains the most viable option available to both, India and Pakistan.
Pakistan, which was identified as the lower riparian when boundaries were redrawn during Partition, has much at stake in the continuation of Indus Waters Treaty. The 1960, World Bank arbitrated treaty gives Pakistan exclusive use of water from the rivers Indus, Chenab and Jhelum – all of which flow from India to Pakistan. India is however allowed to generate electricity from these rivers. Thus in 2000, India started building a two phase, 450 MW each, hydroelectric project on river Chenab. The site of the project is in southern Doda district of Chandrakot. Pakistan does not have an objection to the project per se but to the ‘design’ of the project. Pakistan is of the view that the design was not approved by both countries, as specified by the clauses of the treaty and that the construction of the dam would allow India to store and thereby control the flow of water into Pakistan.
While Indian officials summarily dismiss the validity of the above claims, there is no doubt that Pakistan’s long-term benefits lie in continuing within the ambit of the Indus Waters Treaty. If World Bank is indeed moved for arbitration, a consequent action may well be the annulment of the treaty. This would not bode well for an increasingly agrarian Pakistan economy dependent on the waters of these very rivers, especially in the province of Punjab. In addition two main dams in Pakistan – Mangla and Terbela – which receive and store water from melting snowcaps, have not even reached the average capacity level this past year. Rainfall too was lower than average in Pakistan last year. Thus if Pakistani officials are arguing that the construction of the dam may well result in a loss of almost 8000 cusecs of water each day, they must also acknowledge the reality of the above facts before approaching the World Bank for arbitration. Faced with the arguments, Pakistan should be prompted to continue in engaging with India.
India’s stake in the construction of the project and continuing with talks is equally if not more important. First and foremost are financial constraints. Even while talks between representatives of the two countries were collapsing, the Power Finance Corporation granted a sum of almost Rs. 1770 crores to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir for the construction of the dam. Even New Delhi recently set aside Rs. 630 crore for the continuation of the project. With the amount of money that has already been spent on the project there is obviously concern over the completion of the same. The government does not want to incur costs to the project through unnecessary delays and is also not keen on suspending the project at the stage that it is in. Secondly this project is important to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir and therefore to the Central government as this is the only power project owned by the former. In addition this project would help generate much needed electricity in a region, which already suffers from daylong power cuts.
It is important to bring in here the objections to the design of the dam as raised by Pakistan. India denies that the dam would be used for storing water thereby depriving Pakistan of its water resources. Lowering the height of the dam, as Pakistan suggests, would reduce the power producing capacity of the project to a mere 50 MW from the stated capacity of 450 MW of the project. This would reduce the viability of the project especially in light of the focus with which it is being built.
Most importantly however it is important that India continues to engage Pakistan through diplomatic channels because if the latter does indeed approach the World Bank for arbitration it would be indicative of the discussion of Kashmir – or at least an aspect of Kashmir - in an international forum. This is something that India should avoid at all costs.
Thus if one was to conclude that talks remain for now the most viable option for both India and Pakistan then thought must be extended to agreeable options that may be approved by both countries. The first option would indubitably be to convince Pakistan of the benefits of the project, especially for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Another option maybe for India to extend a ‘water and electricity’ sharing deal with Pakistan thereby allowing the construction and eventual functioning of the project. Eventually however it must be acknowledged by both countries that dialogue would be a far better option than any unilateral action that either India or Pakistan may pursue.
Pakistan, which was identified as the lower riparian when boundaries were redrawn during Partition, has much at stake in the continuation of Indus Waters Treaty. The 1960, World Bank arbitrated treaty gives Pakistan exclusive use of water from the rivers Indus, Chenab and Jhelum – all of which flow from India to Pakistan. India is however allowed to generate electricity from these rivers. Thus in 2000, India started building a two phase, 450 MW each, hydroelectric project on river Chenab. The site of the project is in southern Doda district of Chandrakot. Pakistan does not have an objection to the project per se but to the ‘design’ of the project. Pakistan is of the view that the design was not approved by both countries, as specified by the clauses of the treaty and that the construction of the dam would allow India to store and thereby control the flow of water into Pakistan.
While Indian officials summarily dismiss the validity of the above claims, there is no doubt that Pakistan’s long-term benefits lie in continuing within the ambit of the Indus Waters Treaty. If World Bank is indeed moved for arbitration, a consequent action may well be the annulment of the treaty. This would not bode well for an increasingly agrarian Pakistan economy dependent on the waters of these very rivers, especially in the province of Punjab. In addition two main dams in Pakistan – Mangla and Terbela – which receive and store water from melting snowcaps, have not even reached the average capacity level this past year. Rainfall too was lower than average in Pakistan last year. Thus if Pakistani officials are arguing that the construction of the dam may well result in a loss of almost 8000 cusecs of water each day, they must also acknowledge the reality of the above facts before approaching the World Bank for arbitration. Faced with the arguments, Pakistan should be prompted to continue in engaging with India.
India’s stake in the construction of the project and continuing with talks is equally if not more important. First and foremost are financial constraints. Even while talks between representatives of the two countries were collapsing, the Power Finance Corporation granted a sum of almost Rs. 1770 crores to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir for the construction of the dam. Even New Delhi recently set aside Rs. 630 crore for the continuation of the project. With the amount of money that has already been spent on the project there is obviously concern over the completion of the same. The government does not want to incur costs to the project through unnecessary delays and is also not keen on suspending the project at the stage that it is in. Secondly this project is important to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir and therefore to the Central government as this is the only power project owned by the former. In addition this project would help generate much needed electricity in a region, which already suffers from daylong power cuts.
It is important to bring in here the objections to the design of the dam as raised by Pakistan. India denies that the dam would be used for storing water thereby depriving Pakistan of its water resources. Lowering the height of the dam, as Pakistan suggests, would reduce the power producing capacity of the project to a mere 50 MW from the stated capacity of 450 MW of the project. This would reduce the viability of the project especially in light of the focus with which it is being built.
Most importantly however it is important that India continues to engage Pakistan through diplomatic channels because if the latter does indeed approach the World Bank for arbitration it would be indicative of the discussion of Kashmir – or at least an aspect of Kashmir - in an international forum. This is something that India should avoid at all costs.
Thus if one was to conclude that talks remain for now the most viable option for both India and Pakistan then thought must be extended to agreeable options that may be approved by both countries. The first option would indubitably be to convince Pakistan of the benefits of the project, especially for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Another option maybe for India to extend a ‘water and electricity’ sharing deal with Pakistan thereby allowing the construction and eventual functioning of the project. Eventually however it must be acknowledged by both countries that dialogue would be a far better option than any unilateral action that either India or Pakistan may pursue.
No comments:
Post a Comment