Editorial: Endless objections

The talks between India and Pakistan on the fresh objections raised by the latter over the Baglihar hydropower project on the Chenab in Jammu and Kashmir ended in a stalemate on Friday. Neither the actual inspection of the project by Pakistan’s officials nor Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s assertion that Pakistan’s justified concerns have been addressed made a difference. Pakistan continues to maintain that it has been denied at least 0.2 million acre feet of its share of Chenab waters during the dam-filling stage, though India claims that it has strictly followed the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 while impounding water for stocking the newly constructed dam during the monsoon months. Pakistan’s stand could be influenced by larger considerations, such as stopping other projects by India on the west-flowing rivers allotted to Pakistan under the Indus Treaty. The list of such projects, almost all of which are embroiled in controversies raised by Pakistan, is long and includes Phase II of Baglihar, Kishenganga, Dul-Hasti, Sawalkot and even the Wullar barrage/Tulbul navigation project that has remained in limbo for years.

Jammu and Kashmir is a chronically power-starved state. People there have to bear up with 11-hour power cuts even after the recent commissioning of the Baglihar Phase I power station. The point is that though the Indus treaty allows India to create water storage aggregating to 3.60 million acre feet on the three west-flowing rives — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — it has actually tapped only an insignificant fraction of its share as yet. And, despite the treaty permitting creation of 8,769 Mw of hydel power capacity (at 60 per cent load factor) on these three rivers, no more than around 1,500 Mw has been put up. Indeed, the World Bank-mediated water treaty was inherently flawed though India, the upper riparian, has meticulously adhered to it even during the wars between the two countries. The drawback in the treaty was that it involved neither water-sharing nor benefit-sharing. Instead, it adopted the simplistic approach of dividing the rivers between the two countries, regardless of water flows and the needs of the people in the respective river valleys. Pakistan should consider the implications of all this when it objects to any and all actions by India under the treaty.