Speaker: George Verghese
Chair: PR Chari

PR Chari

Water sharing is increasingly becoming a source of tension that will grow as demands increase and supplies decrease. There is a growing consciousness of the scarcity of water as in the next two decades we might be witnessing water wars in the world. The link between water management and environmental degradation needs to be recognized and a national policy evolved.

Both India and Pakistan depend on snow-fed rivers that rise in the Himalayas. The Indus moreover passes through Jammu and Kashmir, which is in dispute between the two countries. The Tulbul Navigation Project (Wullar Barrage), Baglihar, Kishanganga, Salal are mere contentious water issues. The Sir Creek issue is a territorial dispute which involves national claims over regional territorial waters. Under the Law of the Seas Convention, nations have to make their claims to territorial waters and the seabed adjacent to their shores before 2009; otherwise a solution would be imposed on them.

George Verghese

Indus, one of the great rivers of the world, identifies with the South Asian region. Pakistan is a child of the Indus, like Egypt which is a child of the Nile. India perceives the disagreements over the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) as a political issue and not a water issue. Pakistan considers it as an ideological issue - unfinished business of the partition and in terms of strategic depth, ties with China, as also a lifeline issue.

The IWT brokered by the World Bank provided for the division of the rivers between India and Pakistan. The eastern rivers, Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were allocated to India. The western rivers, Jhelum, Chenab and Indus were allotted to Pakistan (barring their use by India under specified conditions in Jammu and Kashmir). The IWT laid to rest the lifeline concern of Pakistan. Indus Water Commissioners were appointed by both sides for annual inspection, exchange of reports and resolution of differences. The burden for operating the treaty lies with the upper riparian i.e., India. The IWT has survived the conflicts between India and Pakistan and has worked because India has been a responsible upper riparian. It is one of the greatest triumphs of the United Nations system.

Under the IWT, India can undertake projects on the western rivers for general conservation, flood control, irrigation and hydropower generation. Pakistan has to be kept informed about any projects that India undertakes. If Pakistan objects, it becomes a matter of dispute to be settled either by negotiations or by a neutral expert, or by arbitration. Three members, one from India, one from Pakistan and the third member by mutual agreement or an International Court of Justice appointee in lieu would be the arbitrators.

Issues of Contention

Until now 27 projects undertaken by the Indian side have been questioned by Pakistan basically to halt progress and delay implementation, which gets related to the Kashmir issue. In the late 1970's, Pakistan objected to Salal, a 480 MW hydro power project on the Chenab river on the grounds that it can be used to store water and dry up the downstream rivers and canals that could also be used for anti-tank defences by Pakistan. It could also be used for flooding the lower riparian states. These fears are irrational. To flood Pakistan, the dam would have to be broken down and the areas to be flooded would first be on the Indian side. Moreover, this would be against the rules of war and against the Geneva Conventions. It would invite international condemnation, India therefore would not indulge in such an act. India agreed to make design changes in the Salal dam and now faces siltage problems. India does not want this experience to be repeated with future projects.

The objection is similar for the Tulbul project where Pakistan insists that a storage dam is being constructed. The project involves retaining water in the Wullar Lake formed by the river Jhelum, rising naturally and then releasing it in a regulated fashion after October. It could be used for navigational purposes and to impound water for the Uri hydel power plant. Termed as a 'flood retardation scheme' by India, this could be beneficial for other projects downstream. Pakistan insists that a storage dam is being constructed. The construction was stopped in 1987, and has not moved ahead for 17 years due to lack of progress in the negotiations.

In the mid nineties the Baglihar project became an issue. Pakistan said construction of the project was in violation of the IWT after visits by its Indus Commissioner for inspection. In January 2005, three out of the six objections raised by Pakistan were resolved. The other three relating to the height of the dam, pondage and level of intake remain unresolved. Pakistan wants a neutral expert to resolve the issue, after a reference was made.

Kishenganga is a tributary that flows into the Jhelum near Nowshera (close to Muzaffarabad). India informed Pakistan about the project in 1994. Inter-tributary transfer is allowed under the IWT. The river rises near Gurez and flows through J&K and then crosses the LoC, now renamed Neelum before joining the Jhelum near Muzaffarabad.

The Project envisages a 75 metre high concrete dam at Gurez at about 8,000 feet to store 1,40,000 MAF of water and divert some flows through a 22 km tunnel bored into the mountain into the Madmati Nala, which empties into the Wullar Lake. Pakistan's objection is that the water is not transferred into the same tributary Neelum, although it finally gets into the Jhelum. Pakistan argues that it is already building a dam on the Neelum near Nowshera to irrigate a 100 km stretch from Nowshera to the LoC, and that 1,33,000 hectares was already being irrigated. There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. Neither does the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) show this as one of its projects nor do satellite surveys confirm this. Pakistan counters with another objection that the project would flush the Wullar Lake.

According to India, the work on the Kishenganga Project commenced well before the Neelum project. Pakistan insists to the contrary. How do we determine the 'existing use'of water that will get affected? Does India count from the date on which it informed Pakistan or from the date on which the Nowshera project is completed? These are some issues in dispute. The quantum of the water to be diverted by the project would only be a fraction of the water flowing into Pakistan and is enough to feed the projects on the other side. By the end of July, if Pakistan remains dissatisfied with the ongoing negotiations on this issue, it would be entitled to ask for adjudication by a neutral expert from the World Bank.

Political and Lifeline Issues

Although the lifeline issue was laid to rest with the IWT coming to force in 1960, the ideological issue remained. After Musharraf's changed stance on the Kashmir issue, tremendous pressure has been mounted on the Pakistani government to rekindle the life-line issue. Like India, Pakistan is also a poor manager of water and they have an inter-provincial problem of water sharing. The country is looking for storage spaces.

Climate change is also shrinking the glaciers and changing rainfall patterns. There is a need for more storage to insure against these hazards. Article 7 of the IWT envisages future cooperation and points to the "common interest in the optimum development of the rivers" and calls upon both sides "to cooperate, by mutual consent, to the fullest extent…in undertaking engineering works in the rivers". Joint harnessing of water should be a part of the peace process. The notion of IWT 2 obviously builds on the foundation of IWT 1 and does not discard it.

Musharraf talks about soft borders and making borders irrelevant, which India had been suggesting in the past. The Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus has already started. With the movement of trucks, there would be need for more roads to be opened, leading to greater exchanges taking place in education, health, aviation and commerce. These significant activities would make borders irrelevant. Solutions to water sharing issues are significant for the development of Jammu and Kashmir, and it would be an important CBM.

Discussion

Q Kashmir has always felt that it has been unfairly treated by the IWT. Negotiating an IWT 2 would relate to the peace process. Pakistan would probably consider IWT 2 seriously if the coming environmental crisis is explained to them.

Response: Objections from Jammu and Kashmir are emotional. They have not understood the IWT. The Government of India has not made the Treaty text it easily accessible, nor has it publicised the most relevant clauses. In Jammu and Kashmir, even 50% of the water capacity available for irrigation is not used. Some 500,000 acres of land is currently being irrigated in J&K, but the capacity is 1.34 million acres. People need to be made aware of the need to use the available water resources. As far as utilisation of the eastern river waters is concerned, we allow 300 MAF of water to flow into Pakistan (flood waters). We would be greatly benefited by linking the Indus water sharing issue to the peace process with Pakistan. From the peace process point of view it would internationalise the Kashmir issue but in another sense.

Q How much awareness is there in India and Pakistan regarding the future changes in the region's glaciers? We need more storage and thus far we have not been able to utilise our water resources very well.

Response: The world has accepted that climate change is real. Its public awareness in Pakistan is much more limited than in India.

Q How does the inter-provincial agreement of 1991 on water sharing work in Pakistan?

Response: It doesn't work and has failed.

Q Pakistan is an upper riparian state for the gas pipeline. India is the upper riparian for the Indus waters. Is there some way to connect the pipeline issue and the water sharing issue to build confidence?

Response: The threat of holding each other hostage will not work. Water flows naturally along a particular course. Gas can be brought from anywhere through pipelines. The two projects cannot be compared.

Q Three hundred MAF of water is allowed to flow from the eastern rivers granted to India in the IWT. What measures are we taking to harness these waters?

Response: India has built storages for the flood waters of the eastern rivers. There is a possibility of transfer of these waters to the Yamuna basin. A number of projects are coming up in the Himachal for water storage and harnessing.

Q Does it not go against the spirit and understanding of the IWT to link it to the Kashmir issue? It would create more problems for both sides.

Response: This is politico-legal-engineering issue and one should not argue legally in a vacuum. Its essential political background should be kept in mind while addressing the problem.

Q Is there any other technical difference between the east and the west flowing rivers apart from the rights over the waters?

Response: The western rivers flow through J&K which is a contentious issue and we are allowed to use these waters only under certain specified conditions by the IWT. The eastern rivers do not flow through J&K.

Comments

Water-use culture in Pakistan is problematic. Use of water is managed through canal irrigation. Projects that the government has taken up have not been properly implemented. WAPDA is one of the most corrupt organisations in Pakistan. The Baglihar issue is used by Pakistan as a diversionary tactic to distract attention from its own internal water disputes. There is a hysteria being created over water in Pakistan. Given these factors, coupled with the absence of national dialogue on water, its sharing is going to be a difficult issue.

PR Chari

We need think in an integrated manner and utilize water optimally. The hydrological cycle has to be respected. Negotiating an Indus Water Treaty 2 would be a huge Confidence Building Measure (CBM). It would engage both countries in a regional economic integration process.