ajtr
BANNED
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 0
This article shreds most of the pakistan myths wrt baglihar and kishanganga projects
A water treaty has been keeping India and Pakistan on some level ground since 1960, at least as far as the water systems are concerned
In 1960, India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water Treaty, with the World Bank’s mediation, to end controversies relating to water sharing between the 2 countries. Although geography and terrain makes it difficult to harness the Indus Water on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan frequently made an issue over small scale use of waters of the tributaries as per the treaty. The Treaty proved its effectiveness as it survived recurrent wars and recrimination from the Pakistani side.
It also helped set up an Indus Commission, headed by empowered engineers, for conflict management and as a resolution mechanism. There was only one occasion where Pakistan referred the matter to a neutral expert for a court of arbitration over Baghlihar Dam. The expert cleared the project with minor technical modifications on the height two years ago. Pakistan raised propaganda frenzy over Baghlihar but the neutral expert ruling rubbished the objections.
The Treaty allocated 3 Western rivers, namely Indus, Jhelum and Chenab wholly to Pakistan, which together account for an average water flow of 135 million acre feet. Out of this, India is allowed to irrigate 1.3 million acres and 3.60 million acre feet of water for storage projects, including for conservation and flood control etc. Despite these allocations, India could only use waters to irrigate less than 0.8 million acres as against 1.3 million acres allowed. Under the treaty, India renounced its right to block or divert the flows of the Western rivers and agreed to confine itself to run-off-the-river hydro electric projects and drawing of irrigation water for specific acreage of farmland. Even that was not fully utilised as mentioned above.
With regard to 3 Eastern rivers, namely Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, the entire flows of these rivers were allocated to India. India had provided £ 62 million to Pakistan under the treaty to compensate for construction of new canals in Pakistan after being allowed unrestricted use of waters from Eastern rivers. The total flow of these 3 rivers is 33 million acre feet only and India has not been able to harness the entire potential leaving 3 million acre feet of water flowing into Pakistan.
As the above shows, out of the combined net flow of waters of these six rivers, Pakistan got 80 % of the overall flows and India 20%.
The Treaty provided for exchange of data on flow of water, and proposed hydro power projects as allowed. As the treaty mandates broad Pakistan approval for Indian works on the Western rivers, they used the opportunity to raise number of objections leading to considerable delays in implementation of the projects. The Sallal, Yuri, Dul Hasti and Baghlihar all run-off-river hydro-power schemes without any storage requirements were delayed with Pakistan questioning every aspect of the schemes like technical specifications, data on water flows etc.
In all the cases of objections, the Pakistani argument has been that sudden pondage and release of such waters could be used by India to dry up lower course of Chenab or cause floods that would render Pakistan economically and strategically vulnerable. The argument has no basis and those who know the geography and terrain of Valley would know that such a measure would damage India before it causes any hardship to Pakistan which is 110 Kms down the river course.
Disputes over water sharing among various provinces was a fact of life in united India much before 1947. In-flows of waters are declining over a long period as they depend not just on rain fall and snow melt, but also on the health of tributaries, streams, nullahs as well as ground water, soil and water management practices.
The latest objections of Pakistan relate to the Kishanganga Project on a tributary of Jhelum which is also a run-off-the-river hydro electric project. The project involves channelling of waters of the Kishanganga tributary, which is known in Pakistan as Neelam, to feed the hydro-power project and the waters later re-join the Jhelum river in Pakistan. Total quantum of flow of water will not be affected. This is as permissible by the treaty and the project was initially proposed in the period during 1991-93. However, Pak-sponsored terrorism prevented its construction. It was proposed again in 2003 and again delayed due to terrorist activities. Pakistan was notified yet again last year about the taking up the project. Pakistan, therefore, is hurriedly putting up, with Chinese assistance, its own power project on the Neelam, north of Muzafferabad, to pre-empt the Kishanganga Project.
Pakistani objections to Kishanganga hydro-power project are based on claims that there will be 27% of water shortage in the tributary in the Neelam valley affecting irrigational use. Indian side provided data showing that flow reductions in the tributary during specific periods will only be 15-16% and this would not affect current pattern of use in the valley. Pakistan also claimed that 1.3 lakh hectares are under irrigation under the tributary, but was not able to show it when Indian experts visited the area, three times in 1991, 1996 and 2008. As Pakistan did not have a strong case to force the halting of Kishanganga project, it is creating a frenzy of orchestrated propaganda involving even terrorist groups with threats of launching suicide bombings and even nuclear attacks on Indian projects. Instead, it serves them better if they provide required data on their claims to Indian side for mutually beneficial negotiations or refer to a neutral expert for a ruling if they strongly feel of having a reasonable case.
Many of the problems that Pakistan is attributing to alleged water diversions by India are actually rooted in their domestic politics. Although, India had provided £ 62 million to Pakistan for building new canals in Pakistan for better water management, Pakistan has not constructed any such water management schemes for storage and regulated utilisation of water.
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said in a statement last month that while people say that all of Pakistan’s problems are as a result of their neighbouring country, it is important for people to look within themselves. He said that the dispute with India was not new, and that the Sindh Water Treaty had come into existence to resolve the water issues and act as a mechanism for talks. He said that the Sindh Water platform had been used in the past and would continue to be used in the future. Furthermore, he said that 34 million acre feet of water was being wasted in Pakistan, and that no one was concerned.
Sam Burgess is an senior fellow at the Asian Foundation
Building on a Treaty
A water treaty has been keeping India and Pakistan on some level ground since 1960, at least as far as the water systems are concerned
In 1960, India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water Treaty, with the World Bank’s mediation, to end controversies relating to water sharing between the 2 countries. Although geography and terrain makes it difficult to harness the Indus Water on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan frequently made an issue over small scale use of waters of the tributaries as per the treaty. The Treaty proved its effectiveness as it survived recurrent wars and recrimination from the Pakistani side.
It also helped set up an Indus Commission, headed by empowered engineers, for conflict management and as a resolution mechanism. There was only one occasion where Pakistan referred the matter to a neutral expert for a court of arbitration over Baghlihar Dam. The expert cleared the project with minor technical modifications on the height two years ago. Pakistan raised propaganda frenzy over Baghlihar but the neutral expert ruling rubbished the objections.
The Treaty allocated 3 Western rivers, namely Indus, Jhelum and Chenab wholly to Pakistan, which together account for an average water flow of 135 million acre feet. Out of this, India is allowed to irrigate 1.3 million acres and 3.60 million acre feet of water for storage projects, including for conservation and flood control etc. Despite these allocations, India could only use waters to irrigate less than 0.8 million acres as against 1.3 million acres allowed. Under the treaty, India renounced its right to block or divert the flows of the Western rivers and agreed to confine itself to run-off-the-river hydro electric projects and drawing of irrigation water for specific acreage of farmland. Even that was not fully utilised as mentioned above.
With regard to 3 Eastern rivers, namely Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, the entire flows of these rivers were allocated to India. India had provided £ 62 million to Pakistan under the treaty to compensate for construction of new canals in Pakistan after being allowed unrestricted use of waters from Eastern rivers. The total flow of these 3 rivers is 33 million acre feet only and India has not been able to harness the entire potential leaving 3 million acre feet of water flowing into Pakistan.
As the above shows, out of the combined net flow of waters of these six rivers, Pakistan got 80 % of the overall flows and India 20%.
The Treaty provided for exchange of data on flow of water, and proposed hydro power projects as allowed. As the treaty mandates broad Pakistan approval for Indian works on the Western rivers, they used the opportunity to raise number of objections leading to considerable delays in implementation of the projects. The Sallal, Yuri, Dul Hasti and Baghlihar all run-off-river hydro-power schemes without any storage requirements were delayed with Pakistan questioning every aspect of the schemes like technical specifications, data on water flows etc.
In all the cases of objections, the Pakistani argument has been that sudden pondage and release of such waters could be used by India to dry up lower course of Chenab or cause floods that would render Pakistan economically and strategically vulnerable. The argument has no basis and those who know the geography and terrain of Valley would know that such a measure would damage India before it causes any hardship to Pakistan which is 110 Kms down the river course.
Disputes over water sharing among various provinces was a fact of life in united India much before 1947. In-flows of waters are declining over a long period as they depend not just on rain fall and snow melt, but also on the health of tributaries, streams, nullahs as well as ground water, soil and water management practices.
The latest objections of Pakistan relate to the Kishanganga Project on a tributary of Jhelum which is also a run-off-the-river hydro electric project. The project involves channelling of waters of the Kishanganga tributary, which is known in Pakistan as Neelam, to feed the hydro-power project and the waters later re-join the Jhelum river in Pakistan. Total quantum of flow of water will not be affected. This is as permissible by the treaty and the project was initially proposed in the period during 1991-93. However, Pak-sponsored terrorism prevented its construction. It was proposed again in 2003 and again delayed due to terrorist activities. Pakistan was notified yet again last year about the taking up the project. Pakistan, therefore, is hurriedly putting up, with Chinese assistance, its own power project on the Neelam, north of Muzafferabad, to pre-empt the Kishanganga Project.
Pakistani objections to Kishanganga hydro-power project are based on claims that there will be 27% of water shortage in the tributary in the Neelam valley affecting irrigational use. Indian side provided data showing that flow reductions in the tributary during specific periods will only be 15-16% and this would not affect current pattern of use in the valley. Pakistan also claimed that 1.3 lakh hectares are under irrigation under the tributary, but was not able to show it when Indian experts visited the area, three times in 1991, 1996 and 2008. As Pakistan did not have a strong case to force the halting of Kishanganga project, it is creating a frenzy of orchestrated propaganda involving even terrorist groups with threats of launching suicide bombings and even nuclear attacks on Indian projects. Instead, it serves them better if they provide required data on their claims to Indian side for mutually beneficial negotiations or refer to a neutral expert for a ruling if they strongly feel of having a reasonable case.
Many of the problems that Pakistan is attributing to alleged water diversions by India are actually rooted in their domestic politics. Although, India had provided £ 62 million to Pakistan for building new canals in Pakistan for better water management, Pakistan has not constructed any such water management schemes for storage and regulated utilisation of water.
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said in a statement last month that while people say that all of Pakistan’s problems are as a result of their neighbouring country, it is important for people to look within themselves. He said that the dispute with India was not new, and that the Sindh Water Treaty had come into existence to resolve the water issues and act as a mechanism for talks. He said that the Sindh Water platform had been used in the past and would continue to be used in the future. Furthermore, he said that 34 million acre feet of water was being wasted in Pakistan, and that no one was concerned.
Sam Burgess is an senior fellow at the Asian Foundation
