The KHP would use a dam to divert the Kishanganga river’s water to operate the power station.
LAHORE: The verdict of the International Court of Arbitration on the Kishanganga dispute between India and Pakistan has led to a heated debate in our media. Initially, it was claimed as a victory for Pakistan by our federal minister for water and power. Subsequently, independent observers concluded that our vital interests in this important issue have been compromised. Pakistan’s main concern was that the project would have an adverse impact on the flow of the river downstream. Pakistan is constructing the Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Power Plant downstream of India’s Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (KHP) and would not have sufficient water to operate the plant at the optimum level with reduced flow. The KHP would use a dam to divert the Kishanganga (called Neelum on the Pakistan side) river’s water to operate the power station and subsequently, discharge it into Wullar Lake. According to India, this would divert 10 per cent of the river’s flow, while according to other estimates, the diversion would be as high as 33 per cent. Nevertheless, this would have an adverse impact on Pakistan’s Neelum Valley.
Now, under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 Article III, India is under an obligation to let all the waters of the western rivers, i.e., Chenab, Jhelum and Indus flow and shall not permit any interference with these waters, except for enumerated uses that include generation of hydroelectric power as set out in Annexure D of the Treaty. A new run-of-river plant must be so designed, under Paragraph 15 of Annexure D, as to “ensure that the volume of water received in the river upstream of the plant, during any period of seven consecutive days, shall be delivered into the river below the plant during the same seven-day period, and any one period of 24 hours within that seven-day period, the volume delivered into the river below the plant shall be not less than 30 per cent and not more than 130 per cent, of the volume received in the river above the plant during the same 24-hour period; provided that in case a plant is located on a tributary of the Jhelum on which Pakistan has any agricultural use or hydroelectric use, the water released below the plant may be delivered, if necessary, into another tributary but only to the extent that the then existing agricultural use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on the former tributary would not be adversely affected”.
Some views have been expressed to the effect that the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 should be revisited or renegotiated. I am sure that the tenacity of India in its negotiations with Pakistan would ensure that we shall have a worse deal than the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, if we keep in mind our experience of negotiations with India on Siachen, Sir Creek, Kashmir, etc. Obviously, the treaty cannot be modified by us unilaterally and as per the terms of the treaty, it can only be modified or terminated with mutual consent between the two states. Thus, we shall have to learn from our experience and select our experts/representatives on merit if we are to safeguard our vital interests in the Indus waters in future.
Ross Masud
Published in The Express Tribune, January 13th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
