MS Menon
The Pioneer
November 27, 2013
India should not allow Pakistan to sabotage its hydro-power projects any further by using provisions of a pact that have become fit for the archives. New Delhi has, unfortunately, been too indulgent.
With the final verdict of the International Court of Arbitration on the Kishanganga Project dispute expected within a month, Pakistan has unleashed a media blitz through its official military magazine, Hilal, alleging India is violating the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty to strangulate Pakistan with water shortage.
The CoA, in its interim award (February 2013) had permitted India to proceed with KHP on 2 conditions : (1) When operating it, India has to maintain a minimum flow in the river, and (2) India should not operate the reservoir below the dead storage level even to flush out the deposited silt.
India is happy that the court made it accountable only for the total flows in the Jhelum river system and not in an individual stream like the Kishanganga and upheld the right to divert water within the basin. However, it is unhappy with the condition of maintaining minimum flows which could affect the economics of project operation, and the restriction on reservoir operations which could shorten the life of the project by silting.
Pakistan is desperate. Hence it has initiated the media war, blaming India for causing hardship to its farmers, though it is aware that the scarcity happened solely due to mismanagement of its water resources. It hopes that such an action would get them the support of India-baiters who would jump into the fray to ignite the incendiary hydropolitics and tarnish India’s image using information, misinformation and even information derived from questionable sources.
These detractors were ready to oblige Pakistan as expected. They floated a concept of ‘manipulable storage’ of 1700 million cubic metres as the available reservoir capacity in the Indian projects on the Chenab river. They warned that with this capacity India could withhold 40 days of river flow during lean season and deprive the lower riparian its much needed water. However, the assumptions used in computing the estimate are found to be questionable and the result derived therefrom are highly exaggerated. For example, the ‘manipulable storage’ estimated in the 390 MW Dulhasti project in the Chenab using the same logic is 95mcm, whereas the gross storage provided in the project is only about 9mcm — one tenth of the computed value!
Also, in projects like Baglihar, quoted by Hilal, there has, so far, been no report of water shortage downstream. Further, the presumption that India would first deplete all its storage to refill the reservoirs with the lean season flows to spite Pakistan, ignoring the substantial revenue loss of millions of dollars it would suffer by shutting down power generation during this exercise, does not stand to reason.
This is not the first time these critics have vilified India for ‘harassing’ Pakistan. Upset with the decision of the ‘neutral expert’ on the Baglihar project, some of them had accused India for filling Baglihar reservoir to cause water scarcity in Pakistan. They were aware that India had to complete this task during the permitted monsoon period for commissioning the project.
Also water downstream was never in short supply then and even the One of Pakistan’s Ministers had lamented about water wastage by local farmers. Nevertheless, Islamabad made a hue and cry on India’s action then. Even now, it continues to be afflicted by bouts of amnesia and suffers from an ideology-induced myopia regarding the ground realities.
The final court verdict is expected to uphold the principles enshrined in the treaty, ie, optimum development and utilisation of the Indus waters and it is to be hoped that the CoA would not to impose any restriction to affect the economic viability of the projects planned. However, Pakistan is certain to continue to create hassles for India over the latter’s projects.
Now, China has also staked its rights on the Indus waters by constructing the Zada Gorge project in upper Sutlej and Senge Ali project in the upper Indus, (western Tibet), a situation not anticipated in the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. These interventions would drastically reduce the river flows downstream, upsetting the working of the treaty. However, China is not concerned with the treaty, as it is not a party to it. If the river flows downstream get affected, Pakistan and their sympathisers would still continue their vituperative attacks on India.
The operation of the treaty for the last five decades has revealed that it has only perpetuated the Indus dispute. It could survive all these years because India willingly acquiesced to the tantrums of its neighbour. With China entering the scene, it is now time for India to insist on a review of the treaty. If Pakistan does not cooperate, India should invoke Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969, which permits terminating or withdrawing from the treaty due to fundamental change of circumstances. India should not allow Pakistan to sabotage its projects any further by using provisions of a treaty that have become fit for the archives.
The writer is a former Member Secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Central Water Commission.
