Baglihar Project in Indus basin

Baglihar project and Pakistan's tantrums



THE RECENT developments on the Baglihar Project subsequent to the inconclusive talks between the Water Resources Secretaries of India and Pakistan have serious implications for the ongoing India-Pakistan dialogue for lasting peace in the subcontinent. Pakistan's decision to seek World Bank's arbitration on the ongoing hydro-electric project is in stark contrast to the confidence building measures being attempted by India.

Even though India had shown its willingness to be receptive on the issues of technical modifications for the project without endangering the safety of the dam and the hydropower plant under construction, it has been reported that Pakistan considers Baglihar as another dispute with India requiring solution for improvement in relations between the two countries.

Mediatory efforts


The World Bank came into the scene of dispute cropping up between India and Pakistan on the sharing of the waters of the Indus basin as a sequel to the partition of India in 1947. Mediatory efforts by the Bank resulted in the signing of Indus Waters Treaty in 1960. The treaty apportioned the entire waters of the three eastern rivers — the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — to India except for limited domestic, non-consumptive and irrigation use by Pakistan; and the waters of the three western rivers, namely, the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum were allocated to Pakistan, less limited uses by India for domestic, agricultural and non-consumption purposes including hydro-power generation under certain conditions. Non-consumptive uses are permitted subject to the proviso that the water is returned to these rivers, exclusive of seepage and evaporation incidental to the drawal or use. The provisions in the treaty enable India to build storages with limited capacities on each of the three western rivers to be used for hydro-power generation and other purposes.

The treaty also specifies that the operations of any new run-of-river hydro plant have to be in such a way that the volume of water received in the upstream of the plant during any period of seven consecutive days shall be delivered into the river below the plant during the same seven day period and also ensuring certain minimum and maximum flows every day during such period into the river below.

The proposed Baglihar project envisages a run of the river scheme on the Chenab to facilitate hydro-power generation which would specifically benefit Jammu and Kashmir. The project has been planned as per the stipulations in the treaty and is under construction. The main objection from Pakistan is that with the project in position, India could hold the river flow to the disadvantage of Pakistan either by stopping the water supply to western Pakistan or creating flood situations downstream in that country by abrupt operations of the gated structure. However, these allegations have been made by Pakistan only with the sole objective of stopping the project construction as it is also aware that the existing Salal hydro-electric project located downstream would be severely affected to India's disadvantage with such haphazard operations.

India described these misplaced allegations as unfounded fears pointing out that the operations would be as provided for in the treaty. Further, any breach of the condition stipulated would tantamount to the breach of the treaty and India would never like to be a party to that. The country's record in this regard for the past more than four decades would clearly show that despite two wars and strained Indo-Pak relations in the past, India had honoured the treaty in letter and spirit.

Pakistan's fulminations over Baglihar have resulted in that country approaching the World Bank since in the laid down procedures, the treaty signed by the two countries provides for a role for the Bank. Though the Bank is not a "guarantor" of the treaty, it is signatory for specified purposes including settlement of differences and disputes between these countries on the interpretation of the treaty provisions. As provided for in the treaty, "differences" between them could be referred to a "neutral expert" and if the differences do not fall within the mandate of the expert or if the expert decides that the differences should be treated as a "dispute," then the Bank would be required to establish a "court of arbitration."

No logical reason


There is no logical reason for Pakistan for issuing such recriminations about Baglihar. Hence, India has to be prepared to meet Pakistan's tactics in the international media, given the fact that the treaty itself has been concluded at the instance of the World Bank ignoring the basic then existing criteria for sharing international waters as espoused in the Helsinki Rules and other precedents.

Further, India's bitter experience with the planned Tulbul Navigation Project on the Jhelum in India should be an eye opener while dealing with Pakistan on issues connected with the treaty. This navigation project in Jammu and Kashmir was taken up for construction in 1984, but the construction has been held up due to objections from Pakistan and the work stalled for the past two decades as discussions did not make any headway.

The present stand of Pakistan on the Baglihar is unfortunate as it is a ploy to negate India's efforts to develop the hydro-potential it is eligible to harness as per the treaty. The anguishing part of the fact is that though these rivers have an assessed hydro-potential of 8,825 MW (60 per cent load factor), as of now only about 1,350 MW has been harnessed by India. Such actions are likely to create a demand even for abrogation of the treaty, a demand which has been getting support from various quarters in India in the recent past, particularly in view of the general feeling that the treaty has been to the disadvantage of the country as the water sharing formula adopted therein is not equitable as per international practices followed for decades.

So far India has been compromising on many aspects to ensure the successful functioning of the accord. But Pakistan has carried the issues beyond the realms of the international agreement. Time has passed since the signing of the treaty, but history has not stood still. A situation has now come for India to take a tough stand on the Baglihar and other projects since India has strength in its arguments that it has not violated any provisions in the treaty; halting the work at this stage after investing crores of rupees on the project would be negating the development efforts for the welfare of Jammu and Kashmir; and the Bank has not been conferred any power to suspend the work on any project.


(The Hindu, dated 1st February,2005)









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------