Water and the national interest — I
To this day, India has failed to compensate Pakistan for its loss of water.
Recent reports regarding the initiation of arbitration proceedings by the government of Pakistan against the construction of the Kishanganga hydroelectric plant by India appears to be a mala fide attempt to malign a democratically elected government. Furthermore, certain individuals are being protected and promoted on the basis of personal association, rather than competencies and credentials; while others are being maligned. Consequentially, the people of Pakistan are being deliberately misled.
The PPP government recognises its duty to the people it has been elected to serve and is committed to keeping the masses informed of all issues. It has been transparent and forthright on matters including water disputes with India and this is in contrast to the manner in which the Baglihar case was taken up by the previous government. In the days of dictatorship, Pakistan’s right to free flow of waters was compromised time and again, and protests were never lodged against violations of the Indus Waters Treaty by India.
Those responsible for the Baglihar case have been illusory in their interpretation of the decision and incorrectly maintain that it was a win for Pakistan. However, anyone with an iota of proficiency in this field will say that not only did the neutral expert deliver a determination which was damaging to Pakistan, he also saw fit to determine questions that had not been raised by either party. According to John Briscoe — a water expert and former World Bank adviser who is now directing Harvard’s Water Security Initiative — the neutral expert’s determination reinterpreted the treaty to mean that physical limitations no longer applied in light of modern technical standards, removing Pakistan’s main protection against India’s meddling with the river flows. Professor Robert Wirsing of Georgetown University found the determination questionable as, in his view, it damaged “the spirit of the treaty over considerations for a good dam”.
In effect, Pakistan has been deprived of its rights to the Chenab River, as is evident from the significant decrease in water flows into Pakistan at the Marala headworks near Sialkot, which, in turn, has adversely affected the kharif crop. To this day, India has failed to compensate Pakistan for its loss of water. No one has been held accountable for the negligence and absolute inadequacy of the then decision-makers, nor has any demand been made to this affect. Therefore, the pristine enthusiasm on water and the politicisation of an issue of immense national importance by certain quarters certainly makes one curious, to say the least.
And yet one finds it difficult to think that this would be a conspiracy against democracy and the PPP, for surely our critics wouldn’t wish to jeopardise the lives of our future generations for the sake of projecting their amateur views and protecting the interests of a handful of individuals.
Surely they realise that the construction of large dams on rivers that flow into Pakistan is intended to control Pakistani water, which will undoubtedly lead to calamitous consequences for the country. Therefore, shouldn’t this be the occasion for our nation to galvanise and unite, as we have done before?
We welcome judicious criticism and astute arguments, but the persecution of individuals associated with the Kishanganga case can hardly be termed as criticism. The two words are far from being synonymous. The continued ad hominem abuse is clearly intended to demoralise and defame its intended targets. There has to be some limitation to the extent of fiction, for not everything in life can be turned into a spy thriller. Or perhaps the critics think that the repetition of unsubstantiated arguments will turn fiction into fact, or that repeating lies will turn them into truths.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 9th, 2011.
The PPP government recognises its duty to the people it has been elected to serve and is committed to keeping the masses informed of all issues. It has been transparent and forthright on matters including water disputes with India and this is in contrast to the manner in which the Baglihar case was taken up by the previous government. In the days of dictatorship, Pakistan’s right to free flow of waters was compromised time and again, and protests were never lodged against violations of the Indus Waters Treaty by India.
Those responsible for the Baglihar case have been illusory in their interpretation of the decision and incorrectly maintain that it was a win for Pakistan. However, anyone with an iota of proficiency in this field will say that not only did the neutral expert deliver a determination which was damaging to Pakistan, he also saw fit to determine questions that had not been raised by either party. According to John Briscoe — a water expert and former World Bank adviser who is now directing Harvard’s Water Security Initiative — the neutral expert’s determination reinterpreted the treaty to mean that physical limitations no longer applied in light of modern technical standards, removing Pakistan’s main protection against India’s meddling with the river flows. Professor Robert Wirsing of Georgetown University found the determination questionable as, in his view, it damaged “the spirit of the treaty over considerations for a good dam”.
In effect, Pakistan has been deprived of its rights to the Chenab River, as is evident from the significant decrease in water flows into Pakistan at the Marala headworks near Sialkot, which, in turn, has adversely affected the kharif crop. To this day, India has failed to compensate Pakistan for its loss of water. No one has been held accountable for the negligence and absolute inadequacy of the then decision-makers, nor has any demand been made to this affect. Therefore, the pristine enthusiasm on water and the politicisation of an issue of immense national importance by certain quarters certainly makes one curious, to say the least.
And yet one finds it difficult to think that this would be a conspiracy against democracy and the PPP, for surely our critics wouldn’t wish to jeopardise the lives of our future generations for the sake of projecting their amateur views and protecting the interests of a handful of individuals.
Surely they realise that the construction of large dams on rivers that flow into Pakistan is intended to control Pakistani water, which will undoubtedly lead to calamitous consequences for the country. Therefore, shouldn’t this be the occasion for our nation to galvanise and unite, as we have done before?
We welcome judicious criticism and astute arguments, but the persecution of individuals associated with the Kishanganga case can hardly be termed as criticism. The two words are far from being synonymous. The continued ad hominem abuse is clearly intended to demoralise and defame its intended targets. There has to be some limitation to the extent of fiction, for not everything in life can be turned into a spy thriller. Or perhaps the critics think that the repetition of unsubstantiated arguments will turn fiction into fact, or that repeating lies will turn them into truths.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 9th, 2011.