Water, War and Peace

PART-I

Dispelling myths

by Khalid Hussain

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

ISLAMABAD: The Indus Waters Treaty 1960 (IWT) is in jeopardy. Pakistan has officially notified to India through a "note verbale" issued by the Foreign Office on April 09 that it is seeking neutral arbitration on the Kishanganga hydroelectric project that India is developing.

Talking to The News, Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamat Ali Shah stressed that Pakistan wants solutions not only within but also "beyond the ambit of the treaty." Pakistan had to declare its formal intention to seek neutral arbitration, "because India has been breaching provisions of the IWT," said Syed Jamat Ali Shah.

"The Indus Waters Treaty allows India to build dams following treaty specifications. Unfortunately, India is flouting these conditions. Pakistan's right to raise objections to Indian projects under the Treaty becomes redundant if only information is supplied but no action is taken. The treaty," he added, "must be followed in letter and spirit."Having issued the note verbale, Pakistan can approach the World Bank to begin the process of appointing a neutral expert (NE) on the Kishanganga project. The NE must also be acceptable to India.

If Pakistan follows through on neutral arbitration for Kishanganga, it will be only the second time that the arbitration mechanism under Article IX of the IWT is being invoked in the 50 years since the treaty came into force retrospectively on April 01, 1960. The first time related to the Baglihar dispute, arbitrated by the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert on February 12, 2007. Then too, Pakistan had sought arbitration.

The present move follows an evolving set of recent contentions between India and Pakistan over India's plans to construct several projects on the Chenab River. "Pakistan would be paying a very high price for India's move to block Pakistan's water supply from the Chenab River," President Zardari asserted in 2008 while speaking before the UN General Assembly in New York. He warned India "not to trade important regional objectives for short-term domestic goals." His statement raised alarm bells around global capitals and renewed focus on the trans-boundary water issues between India and Pakistan.

Washington plans to engage Pakistan and India to help improve their brewing tensions over water, revealed US Under-Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, Maria Otero in a recent statement.

US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley later told reporters that the US is "broadening and deepening" its relationship with both New Delhi and Islamabad and would keep encouraging them "to increase their dialogue".

While this illustrates that nothing between India and Pakistan is straightforward or simple, two myths need to be dispelled that introduce a lot of unnecessary emotive anxiety discussing water issues between India and Pakistan.

The first pertains to fears of a nuclear war between the two countries over water. The other is that Pakistan is becoming water-stressed.

The reality is that while nuclear bombs have a tremendous capacity to destroy, large dams are actually worse. Indian Bofors guns or Air force using traditional bombs can target and destroy Pakistan's two large dams on the rivers Indus and Jhelum. Of course Pakistan can do the same to large dams in India - if destruction on an unimaginable scale is what leaders in the two countries ever go for in a moment of madness.

However, nuclear bombs destroy only one city or area at a time. Billions of cubic metres of water from a burst dam will raze to the ground all that comes in their way till the killer water waves reach the sea. There is actually not much to choose from between the destructive potential of nuclear bombs and bursting dams in these two countries that are among the most thickly populated in the world.

More than nuclear technology, it is the continuity of enmity between Pakistan and India that is the biggest threat to the south Asian sub-continent. The bogey of a nuclear war between the two countries must not come in the way of a sensible understanding of the way forward over our shared water woes. It may not suit the global defence industry and business but we need to have that understanding for an improved water future in India and Pakistan.

The second myth pertains to increasing scarcity of water in Pakistan. Water is a constant in the environment. There is hard data to show that discharges in our rivers continue to follow historic trends. The Indus basin has some of the world's best data recording and sharing systems in place going back to the 19th century. Daily, weekly, monthly and yearly data sets, undisputed to date, are available to both countries for their planning purposes. In Pakistan, two sources for such data are the (Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) and the Indus Rivers System Authority (Irsa).

The notion of scarcity arises when population increases are linked to limited water availability. Indian and foreign commentators often refer to the Falkenmark Water Stress Indicators (in use since the mid-1990s) that establish the linkage of these two factors (water and population) during the ongoing crises in Pakistan and India's trans-boundary water issues governed by the Indus Waters Treaty.

This is not the space to challenge the basis of Prof Falkenmark's work or the general advantages it affords to the rich western countries in multilateral interactions on water with the developing world. The simple fact of the matter is that Pakistan still uses 93 per cent of its river waters for agriculture and only three percent for direct human consumption, as Dr Manzoor Malik, Director of the Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) explains.

Since water is allocated against irrigated land that has not changed in tandem with population statistics, the notion of water stress in the case of Pakistan remains unfounded.

It is, however, imperative that the contentions be urgently addressed for the sake of lasting peace between India and Pakistan.

PART-II

Sustained, open communication is essentialby Khalid Hussain

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

ISLAMABAD: The ongoing water contentions between India and Pakistan in the context of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 (IWT) place before us four different yet inter-connected realities. One is the perception present in news coverage and analysis by the mass media in both the countries. The other exists between the two Indus Water Commissioners (IWCs) that jointly make up the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) charged with implementing the IWT in letter and spirit. Third there are the ever-dominant bilateral security concerns that now stand compounded with ongoing international involvement in our regional geo-politics. And

finally, the environmental and ecological reality that we all live with across South Asia connects us to the rest of the world fighting climate change.

Let us address these perceptions one by one for a holistic perspective on water contentions between India and Pakistan. The media version is flawed because of a limited capacity to understand the complex hydrological regimes of the Indus Rivers System that both countries manage independently in their respective territories following the IWT. The almost secretive working of the IWCs in both countries further compounds the situation. The media in Pakistan, while projecting unfounded allegations of water theft and the 'water war' India is waging, tends to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the IWT - an instrument that has ensured water peace between the neighbours even during war times.

To these allegations, senior Pakistani statesman and a water expert in his own right, Dr Mubashir Hasan responds: "If India has stolen our water, then tell me how have they done it? Where have they taken it?"

"New Delhi has no 'storage and diversion canals network' to withhold Pakistan's share of water," explained India's High Commissioner to Pakistan Sarat Sabharwal in his recent speech at the Karachi Council for Foreign Affairs.

Basically, there is a general tendency to oversimplify the IWT, especially in Pakistan. Most coverage simply goes with the notion that India has no rights over the Western Rivers (Chenab, Jhelum and the Indus). The reality is not that simple. Indian has water rights for domestic uses including drinking, washing, bathing and sanitation. The non-consumptive uses allowed to India cover uses including navigation, flood control and fishing.

India also has the right to draw water from the Western Rivers to irrigate a maximum permissible irrigated crop area of 1.34 million acres. It can also use water from these rivers for run-of-the river hydroelectric projects. Hydroelectric projects incorporated in storage works are also allowed albeit to the tune of only 3.6 million acre feet (MAF). Of this storage, 0.4 MAF is allowed on the Indus, 1.5 MAF on the Jhelum and 1.7 MAF on the Chenab.

This is in addition to the storage that existed on these rivers before the Treaty came into force. However, storage is strictly regulated for India, with a total of only 1.25 MAF allowed as general storage. The remaining quantity is split between 1.6 MAF for generating hydroelectricity and 0.75 MAF for flood control.

The media is key to ensure a fair coverage of the issues involved. The current water scarcity that is feeding emotions across the borders of the IWT is not permanent. It is making water 'hot' at the moment but as soon as supplies are replenished in the river system, the issue will move to the backburner as always.

This is why sustained open communication is so essential, as underscored at 'Talking Peace', the editors' and anchors' conference organised in Karachi recently by Aman ki Aasha, a joint initiative for peace by the Jang Group and Geo TV in Pakistan and the Times of India group in India. Editors agreed on the need for more cross-border information and on the need to focus on facts rather than emotions when writing about each other's countries.

Concerted joint efforts are essential to cover the range of issues involved in an objective and fair manner on both sides. This is imperative to counter tensions between the two countries. This brings us to the latest unresolved contention between the two Indus Water Commissioners (IWCs) that jointly make up the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) charged with implementing the IWT in letter and spirit.

As reported earlier (Part I of this series), Pakistan has already notified India of its intention to seek arbitration on the Kishanganga Hydroelectric project. The News has learnt that Pakistan will hire the services of its arbitrator in the Baglihar Dam case, Prof. James Crawford, Head of the Law, Cambridge University, once again. The News has learnt that a senior water expert from Pakistan paid a quiet visit to England in the last week of March this year to confirm his acceptance.

 PART-III

Indus Waters Treaty Under Threat

by Khalid Hussain

Friday, April 30, 2010

ISLAMABAD: The Indus Waters Treaty 1960 (IWT) that settled the sharing of the Indus waters was signed by Pakistan President Ayub Khan and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on September 19, 1960, and came into force retrospectively on April Fool's Day in 1960. On the positive side, both India and Pakistan have continued to follow the IWT even during times of war. This is why the IWT is considered the most successfully water treaty of the world, ensuring conflict resolution despite expressed acrimony.

The decision on Feb. 12, 2007 by the Neutral Expert (NE) appointed by the World Bank, however, created new potential threats to the survival of the IWT. The NE�s decision on Baglihar shot down Pakistan's critical concerns on India's construction of gated spillways. Pakistan held these were in violation of the treaty's specifications. The NE did not agree and allowed India to design projects according to the state-of-art in hydrological engineering.

This decision is likely to influence all future interpretations of the Indus Waters Treaty. The rights and obligations of the parties under the Treaty must now be read in the light of new technical norms and new standards prevalent in the world.

Given how very sensitive the water issue is, and its potential to arouse passions, the implications for the IWT's future are many. It is noteworthy that this was the first time in nearly 50 years that World Bank was called upon to ensure independent adjudication of a water dispute under the IWT.

India can now go ahead and install the Gated Spillways deemed essential for silt control in all its projects, taking the cue from the NE's decision to interpret the Treaty reflecting state-of-the-art in engineering future dams on the Western rivers. Pakistan can also demand trans-boundary Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for the Indian projects on the Western Indus System rivers. This takes the contentions to an arena not covered by the IWT that had hardwired design criteria to safeguard the interests of the lower riparian, Pakistan.

Pakistan has in fact already asked India to share its EIA studies on the Kishenganga dam. "We have also asked India to undertake a trans-boundary EIA," Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner, Syed Jamat Ali Shah, told The News.

"It is Pakistan's right to demand proper trans-boundary studies in the light of the NE's judgement citing International Commission On Large Dams' (ICOLD) references," contends Arshad H. Abbasi, Adviser on Water to the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) and Research Fellow with the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), Islamabad.

However, there are many older contentions that continue to contribute to the increasingly frequent conflicts within the matrix of the IWT. The Indus Waters Treaty requires India to provide design information to Pakistan at least six months before starting construction of any large projects. This is to enable Pakistan to satisfy itself that the design of a plant conforms to the provisions of the Treaty.

"If Pakistan raises any objection, it has to be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty," Indian High Commissioner Sarat Sabarwal said in Karachi, addressing a meeting of the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations and Pakistan-India Citizens Friendship Forum.

He also asserted that India has been meeting its obligation to provide the specified information as necessary. Pakistan's Indus Commissioner Jamat Ali Shah disagrees, alleging that India's interpretation of the relevant IWT clauses under Annexure D is a serious breach of the IWT.

'The provisions of the Treaty imply that any objections must be resolved. If India goes on constructing and we go on objecting without resolution in a time bound manner, then both the letter and spirit of the treaty are negated', he contends, talking to The News. "The Permanent Indus Water Commission must have a mandate to decide. It is pointless to have discussions if we are not here to decide".

Experts like India's former Federal Secretary for Water and Power Ramaswamy R. Iyer differ, arguing that this would be tantamount to giving Pakistan a veto over all India�s projects. "Pakistan would of course be happy if there were no Indian projects at all on the western rivers; but that is not what the Treaty says," commented Iyer in a recent OpEd in The Hindu.

The media on both sides highlighted the most recent case articulating this contention, during the last meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) in Lahore last month wherein the Nimo-Bazgo and Chutak Hydroelectric projects were at issue. Construction on the two projects began in 2005, and both are due to join the Indian electricity grid early next year.

The Indian Indus Water Commissioner Mr. G. Aranga Nathan has handed over to his Pakistani counterpart revised design documents for the Nimo-Bazgo project. For all intents and purposes, the two projects are a done deal for India, about which Pakistan cannot do anything at this point.

Baglihar also continues to haunt the IWT despite having been arbitrated by the NE to the satisfaction of both parties. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA), Pakistan's water distribution body, claimed to have received only 19,351 cusecs on Oct 9, 2009 and 10,739 cusecs on Oct 11, 2009 from the Chenab River. Under the IWT, India must ensure a minimum discharge of 55,000 cusecs.

High Commissioner Sabarwal explained to his Karachi audience that the shortage was due to reduction of inflows upstream However, Jamat Ali Shah says that the contention was not based just on whether or not there were reduced inflows in the system but on the Indian refusal to accept Pakistani data. "If they do not accept our data and continue to cast aspersions, what options are we left with in Pakistan?" he asks. "We have to seek third party monitoring and insist on using telemetric devices." Water contentions between India and Pakistan take a new dimension with the introduction of a third part to mediate differences under the IWT.

PART-IV

Children of the monsoonsby Khalid Hussain

Saturday, May 01, 2010

ISLAMABAD: "We want to retain the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). It is India that wants to circumvent the provisions," alleges Syed Jamat Ali Shah, Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner, talking to The News from his office in Lahore. "We have no option but to go for neutral arbitration," he adds referring to the disputed Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project in the Indian-administered Kashmir.

This development and Pakistan's earlier wishes to bring water on to the agenda for future talks with New Delhi add another geopolitical angle to the contention.

Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir handed over a brief paper on the Kishenganga dispute to his Indian counterpart during the secretary level talks at New Delhi in February.

The two countries have been discussing the agenda issues, seeking resumption of their stalled peace process. Some in India, like the respected analyst Siddharth Varadarjan, saw this as a "carrier of concord with Pakistan" but others, like India's former Federal Secretary for Water and Power Ramaswamy R. Iyer hold a different perspective closer to the established view there.

Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao insisted it was "important to abide by the provisions of the treaty".

India has reportedly refused to include water on the agenda for the 'composite dialogue' alongside terrorism and Balochistan, whenever it may formally take place (although some observers contend that the beginning of formal talks at the secretary level means that the fifth round of Composite Dialogue has started for all intents and purposes).

While the foreign secretary talks in New Delhi and later discussions in the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) in Lahore were inconclusive, Pakistan's formal notification to India seeking neutral arbitration to resolve the dispute indicates that water will continue to top the bilateral agendas for some time.

Following the last round of foreign secretary level talks in New Delhi, Jamat Ali Shah was quoted in the media saying, "Pakistan must look beyond the Indus Waters Treaty."

Elaborating to The News, he added, "Pakistan has a principled stance on the issue of river water sharing with India. We want to work within the ambit of the treaty. But we want transparency, as the Indian track record is not good. India is in breach of the treaty. They do not listen to our objections. This is a breach of the treaty."

The Kishanganga Hydropower Project on the Ganga River -- called Neelum upon entering Pakistan -- in Kashmir is disputed because Pakistan holds that diversion of the waters is not allowed under the IWT. Pakistan is also constructing the 1.6 billion dollars 969 megawatt Neelum-Jehlum Hydropower Project downstream that is expected to face a 27 per cent water deficit if the Indian project gets completed.

Pakistan has reportedly awarded the contract for the Neelum-Jhelum project to a Chinese firm. Work on this project is underway on a hectic schedule. Pakistan cites the right of "prior appropriation" under the IWT as the reason behind this high-altitude development race. Not everyone is convinced.

India's Federal Minister of Power Jairam Ramesh has termed the Kishenganga project as "an issue with geostrategic and foreign policy implications". He added, "Even I am not competent to speak about it".

Dr Robert G. Wirsing, a member of the faculty of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii and an expert on South Asian affairs, recently said in a lecture in Islamabad that the Treaty had inherent weaknesses.

"The solution to water disputes is heavily tied with the fate of Jammu and Kashmir," he said.

Besides such sensitive issues, there are overarching ecological concerns that impel both countries to work in a spirit of harmony to stave off future threats. This is the fourth dimension to the water contentions between India and Pakistan. Jeopardising the IWT cannot help either of the traditional rivals.

According to the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Himalayan glaciers -- a major source of water for India and Pakistan -- are melting at an alarming pace due to global warming.

The International Centre for Mountain Area Development (ICIMOD) has produced similar findings after extensive research.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also sounded serious warnings over the air-borne chemical clouds over the Himalayan glaciers and Kashmir.

"Pakistan needs to prioritise water and power development," says Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Director of the Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources (PCRWR).

"The cost of hydroelectric generation is only Rs. 1.03 per unit," notes PCRWR Chairman Dr. Muhammad Alam Tahir, stressing the need to develop indigenous renewable energy resources.

"India has generated 8,296 MW electricity working within the 1.2 MAF limits imposed for the water India can store on the Chenab River under the IWT," Adviser to the Centre for Research on Security Studies and Research Fellow with the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) Arshad H. Abbasi points out.

"We have no limit on how much water to store on the Chenab, yet all we are able to generate is only 13 MW!"

"The more urgent problem is watershed management in the catchment areas of the Indus River System.

"We must ensure the natural ecosystems are not disturbed," says seasoned development expert Syed Ayub Qutub, urging cooperation "for we are all the children of the monsoons".

Dr Shahid Ahmad of the Pakistan Agriculural Research Council wants urgent action to "manage the shared underground water resources in the Indus Basin sustainably." He is also for joint watershed management in the upper catchment areas of the western rivers. The IWT does not provide for any of this.

However, the issue is not simply one of resource consumption. Nearly, 1.25 billion people in India and Pakistan are directly and indirectly affected by these mysterious happenings around the IWT, notes Dr Mubashir Hasan urging all to respect the treaty. Most independent experts in Pakistan agree.

They include Shamsul Mulk, a known expert on water resources, who hopes in the coming years when both Pakistan and India are faced with greater pressures, India's conduct will not negate the spirit of understanding reached in signing the treaty.

"The important thing about water treaties is the conduct of the upper riparian, which determines the treaty's success and failure," he notes.

In Pakistan, this is likely to continue being seen as the prevalent bottomline, our own weaknesses and lack of monitoring notwithstanding. It is clear, however, that water will continue to top the bilateral agendas for some time.

NOTE: This concludes a four-part series of reports under Aman ki Asha's 'Water is Life' campaign initiated to discuss and debate the 'water issue' between India and Pakistan in an open, non-emotional manner.