India returns to Indus Water Treaty!

Iqbal Khan
DURING the recent meeting between Indus Water Commissioners of Pakistan and India, latter has ‘acknowledging’ objections raised by Pakistan over the controversial hydropower projects on Chenab River, over whose water Pakistan has exclusive consumptive usage rights. Nearly 60 years since the landmark Indus Water Treaty (IWT), the water dispute between the two states remains contentious. The Permanent Indus Commission, a bilateral entity, oversees implementation of treaty provisions, and manages the difference arising over water sharing. The Pakistani delegation was headed by Mirza Asif Saeed, while P.K. Saxena led the Indian delegation.Dr Daniel Haines, University of Bristol, in his recent article “Rivers run Wild” carried by News Week Pakistan (Feb. 25 – March 11, 2017) has made interesting comments on water dispute between Indian and Pakistan. Excerpts: “It is no secret that the Pakistani and Indian governments do not get along. A key point of tension is water… India’s plans for hydropower projects in Kashmir at Baglihar and Kishenganga had caused tensions…A neutral expert approved India’s Baglihar plans in 2006. A court of arbitration’s verdict on Kishenganga in 2013 was closer to a draw… The highly specific nature of the Indus treaty makes it fragile. Amending or renegotiating treaty, as some commentators in both countries have recently suggested, could once again highlight basic differences in way that two governments view international water rights”. During the latest talks Indian side has agreed to halt progress and review the design of its 120-megawatt Miyar project. Speaking to the media at the conclusion of talks, Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Mirza Asif Baig said: “The Indian side has agreed to halt progress and review the design of its smaller 120-megawatt Miyar project. India will share the new design with Islamabad before starting work on that project.” Meeting of the Commission was the first since India suspended dialogue under the IWT, following a militant attack on an Indian military base in Uri in September 2016; an incident India promptly blamed on Pakistan but was unable to substantiate with evidence. The agenda of recent meeting included deliberations on Pakal Dul, Lower Kalnai and Miyar hydroelectric plants’ designs, flood data supply by India and programme of tours of inspection and meetings by Pakistan and India to the sites of their interest in the Indus basin. Ministry of Water and Powers has stated: “Indian side has agreed to re-consider Pakistan’s observations on these projects and will respond in the next meeting of the commission.” “We also presented our objections over the designs of Pakul Dal and Lower Kalnai projects,” Pakistan’s Commissioner Asif Baig stated that more talks on controversial projects were likely to be held after three months in New Delhi. Indian side also agreed to a tour of inspection for Pakistan’s Indus Commission which is expected to be arranged before August. Pakistan also asked India to provide outflows from Baglihar and Salal dams during flood season to issue flood early warnings. Indian side has agreed, data will start coming-in before forthcoming flood season. Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects over which Pakistan was seeking International Court of Arbitration through the World Bank were not discussed. “Negotiations on these two projects would be held next month in the United States,” Pakistan’s commissioner said. The two countries would hold three-day secretary-level talks on the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects, under the aegis of the World Bank, in Washington from April 11. “US has intervened at the highest level to help both countries resolve issue”;there will be secretary-level talks on April 11-13.Pakistan is pressing for implementation of arbitration court’s decision on Kishanganga. However, Hindustan Timeshas dropped a hint a day after the meeting that the Washington meet may be “under a cloud”.

India may not attend a World Bank (WB) proposed secretary-level talks with Pakistan as it finds the proposed meet against the ‘spirit of the pact’.” India believes that there is no need to look for another mechanism to break the deadlock since the treaty already had a dispute resolution system built in.” India also believes the WB which brokered the pact in 1960 has lately been “biased” in following the treaty provisions.” And that India cannot be party to any meeting “which is against the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty”. The World Bank was playing role of a ‘mediator’ whereas it should be a ‘facilitator’ between India and Pakistan to resolve issues “in accordance with the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty”. “New Delhi feels the World Bank continues to work against the spirit of the pact by initiating two separate dispute resolution mechanisms,” reported the Hindustan Times.
Though talks concluded on a positive note as India withdrew the design of one smaller hydropower project and agreed to reconsider Pakistan’s observations on two others; there was, however, no commitment from the visiting side to halt construction work on the controversial projects, indicating India’s traditional time-gaining approach to project development. Construction work on the Lower Kalnai project was in progress while that on the Pakul Dal project was yet to start. Both projects are on two different tributaries of the Chenab River. Pattern from all the previous controversial projects like Baglihar and Kishanganga has been that New Delhi engaged Islamabad in technicalities and kept civil and side works moving for years until reaching a fait accompli stage before the matter is challenged in international forums.
Dr Haines aptly concludes “The Indus Waters Treaty, then, deserves credit for its durability, and its role in preventing further escalation in tensions between Pakistan and India during the mid-20th century. But its legacy is a troubled one. On the one hand, it has entrenched both countries in a system of water use that neither finds satisfactory. On the other, it has represented a more or less functional aspect of an otherwise fraught problem. Whatever the national governments choose to do next, the experience of history suggests that any new solution is bound to have unintended consequences”.
One can’t be sure the course India would adopt. Having realized its limitations with regard to walking away from the treaty unilaterally, it has made up its mind to erode the ITW. India may drag Pakistan into meaningless long drawn negotiations. By jeopardizing one of the few treaties that has successfully governed how water is shared between nations, Prime Minster Narendra Modiis opening the floodgates to a new and potent source of conflict, and in so doing, is setting a bad example for the rest of the world. And, as fallout, Pakistan could lose faith in the viability of entering into any future treaty with India.