Two Neighbours and a Treaty Baglihar Project in Hot Waters
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TRANSBOUNDARY DISPUTES Two Neighbours and a Treaty Baglihar Project in Hot Waters Pakistan has objected to several features of the Baglihar hydropower project on the Chenab river in Jammu and Kashmir contending that it violates the Indus Water Treaty. The World Bank, which brokered the IWT, has appointed a neutral expert to resolve the differences. Diplomats fear these developments might cast a shadow on the composite dialogue process as seeking arbitration on the dam means breaking out of the bilateral framework. RAJESH SINHA led to the signing of the IWT in 1960 at Karachi. The signatories were Mohammad his project was conceived in 1992, Ayub Khan for Pakistan, Jawaharlal Nehru approved in 1996 and construction for India and W A B Illif of the World Bank. Tbegan in 1999. The Baglihar Hydro- The treaty has worked well for years. But power Project (BHP) is located on the since the 1980s the differences that cropped river Chenab in Ramban tehsil of Doda up over several projects have not been district, Jammu and Kashmir (J and K). It sorted out despite protracted talks. Pakistan is about 150 km from the nearest railhead, has not only opposed the BHP on river Jammu, near Batote on the Jammu-Srinagar Chenab, it has also opposed the Wullar Highway-1A on the Nasri bypass road. The Barrage/Tulbul navigation project on the BHP will have an installed capacity of 450 Jhelum, the Swalakote hydroelectric project MW during phase I and 900 MW during and Dul Hasti hydroelectric project on the phase II. It is a Rs 4,000 crore venture of the Chenab and the Kishanganga hydroelectric government of Jand K and about Rs 2,500 project on the Kishanganga in J and K. crore has already been spent on it. The project is targeted to be completed by 2007. Suspicious Neighbours Pakistan has objected to several features of the project, contending they violate the The dispute over the BHP centres on Indus Water Treaty (IWT) that lays down the design specifications. Pakistan has the rights and obligations of India and raised six objections relating to project Pakistan for the use of waters of the Indus configuration, free board, spillway (un- system of rivers. India disagreed and gated or gated), firm power, pondage, level Pakistan approached the World Bank, which of intake, inspection during plugging of had brokered the IWT to appoint a neutral low level intake, and whether the structure expert (NE) to resolve the differences. is meant to be a low weir or a dam. The argument is based on paragraph 8 of Drawing Boundaries on Water Annexure D to the IWT. India maintains that the conditions at the Baglihar site When India and Pakistan became inde- make a gated spillway necessary but Pa- pendent in 1947, the boundary between the kistan insists that an ungated spillway will two countries was drawn right across the do just fine and that the plan to provide Indus basin, with Pakistan in the lower a gate contravenes the provisions of para- riparian region. Two vital irrigation graph 8 (e) of Annexure D to the IWT. headworks – Madhopur on Ravi and Pakistan also contends that the pondage Ferozepur on Sutlej – on which the irri- in the operating pool, at 37.722 mm3, gation canals of Pakistan’s Punjab had exceeds the level agreed upon in the treaty been dependent were in Indian territory. and that the intake for the turbine is not The resultant dispute was resolved when located at the highest level as required by negotiations facilitated by the World Bank the treaty. It believes that the height of the 606 Economic and Political Weekly February 18, 2006 dam, at 470 feet, is excessive and that the been taking it into confidence about the consistently expressed its willingness to reservoir created at the site will be more project’s technical details and has been engage its counterpart in technical dis- than what is required for power generation adopting evasive tactics right from the cussions in PIC meetings; arranged the needs and it might block the flow of the beginning. Some sharing of data took place Pakistani team visits to Baglihar and pro- river for a period of 26-28 days during the at a pretty late stage of construction (in vided necessary explanations/clarifications low season (January-February). This, it is 2003). Pakistani engineers believe that to the queries raised by them during the argued, will cause a drop of about 200 calling Baglihar a “hydroelectric” project 100th PIC tour. cumecs in the river flows during this period is a misnomer. The structure will create India claims that information on this at the point of entry into Pakistan. a reservoir at the site and hence should be project was sent to the Pakistan Commis- Based on all these objections Pakistan properly termed “dam” and a dam is not sioner in 1992 as required by the IWT. insists that India should stop all work on allowed as per the terms of the treaty. At Since Pakistan feels that the design of this the project till the issue is resolved. India a briefing after the decision to approach project contravenes the IWT provisions, has refused, saying there is no provision the World Bank was taken, Pakistan the matter has been discussed during the in the treaty for stoppage of work, and that foreign office spokesman Masood Khan 84th, 85th and 86th meetings of the PIC past experiences in trying to find solutions said, “Pakistan was left with no choice but held in 1999, 2000 and 2001. India feels by stopping construction have not been to go to the World Bank. Pakistan tried that Pakistan has been taking a rigid stand productive. every channel provided by the treaty, but despite being informed about changes in The IWT gave India exclusive rights India did not change its stance and refused the design of the plant and that they should over three eastern rivers – Sutlej, Beas and to meet Pakistan’s legitimate concerns.” have first conveyed their views/observa- Ravi – leaving Chenab, Jhelum and Indus Pakistan alleged that New Delhi denied tions on these changes to India. Instead to Pakistan. But the treaty does allow India Islamabad’s repeated demand for an on- they chose to invoke relevant articles in limited use of their waters for agriculture, site inspection by its members of the Indus the treaty and sought intervention of a NE. domestic purposes and development Waters Commission for four years. The Meanwhile India has refused to stop projects provided there is no obstruction treaty provides for an inspection tour once work on the project on the basis of its to the flow of waters into Pakistan. every five years or on request. Only when experience with the Tulbul navigation The Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) threatened with approaching the World project (Pakistan calls it Wullar barrage), set up under the IWT by the two countries Bank did India allow an on-site inspection proposed to be built on the river Jhelum has been meeting regularly to sort out any in October 2003. Among the reasons given at the mouth of the Wullar lake near Sopore differences that arise. This is the first time for Pakistan’s concern was a drought that in Kashmir valley. After India stopped the committee has failed to resolve a crisis had compelled it to economise on water. construction of the Tulbul project in re- forcing Pakistan to invoke the provision With insufficient storage capacity and sponse to Pakistan’s objections a decade to approach the World Bank. The World inadequate rainfall, water shortage in ago, it has not been possible to take it up Bank scrutinised Pakistan’s record of Pakistan reached critical proportions and again. India says that Pakistan’s objections actions taken before the request and was a major source of inter-provincial to BHP are based on apprehensions rather acknowledged that it has the mandate to disharmony. The Pakistan government’s than technical reality. India’s Foreign appoint a NE but is not a guarantor to the inability to make India bend on the Baglihar Secretary Shyam Saran observed that “The treaty and therefore, will not directly dam and Wullar barrage projects came in 1960 Indus Water Treaty under which the participate in any discussion or exchange for severe criticism not only from the reference was made couldn’t deal with on the subject. And so Raymond Lafitte farming community but also from politi- suspicions of this nature.” was appointed as the NE and the arbitra- cians in the ruling coalition. tion clause is in operation for the first time India claims BHP is a fully legal scheme IWT and Jammu and Kashmir in the 45-year history of the treaty. that involves no water storage. It denies allegations that it violates the IWT or that To Kashmiris the BHP is a project for Pakistan’s View it will affect the flow in the river since the and by Jammu and Kashmir, a state in dire IWT allows power generation projects to need of power. They believe Pakistan wants Underlying the dispute are suspicions be built on any of the three western rivers to deny J and K the right to use its own and apprehensions resulting in much rheto- of the Indus river system, as long as they rivers, citing the situation in Pakistan- ric. Claiming the project will affect the benefit the local people and do not inter- occupied Kashmir where they believe people flow of river waters to its territory in rupt the flow of the river. have no rights over Mangla Dam on Jhelum, violation of the IWT, an upset Pakistan India says that reduction in the height built to meet the power and water needs says that India planned the dam and began of the dam will impact the power generation of Punjab and other parts of Pakistan.