Water and the national interest — II

Our internal team of highly qualified, accomplished and experienced government officials and consultants, hired to tackle water issues, brings together a broad range of capabilities, providing excellent prompt assistance to international experts, acting as a link to connect the experts with government departments and officials. Disregarding the prominent and acknowledged stature of these professionals is something that deserves condemnation. The disparagement of such individuals is not only inexcusable, but warrants denunciation as it creates a bad impression. The late Professor Kayan Kaikobad was highly regarded by the small community of experts on public international law and his research was relied upon by members of international tribunals who quoted him in their judgements. However, in Pakistan, his qualifications were questioned and a mockery was made of a man whose work had been acknowledged all over the world, causing great distress to him and his family.

Our international experts are responsible for preparing and presenting our case. Questions raised on the competence of members of the team have either been without any knowledge or consideration of the nature of their roles, or perhaps they intentionally ignore this very important aspect altogether. Recent coverage of the first meeting of the Court of Arbitration, constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 in the matter of the Kishanganga hydroelectric plant dispute between Pakistan and India, was to reinforce the same motive. It is quite evident that an understanding of the purpose of the meeting wasn’t considered necessary. A simple reading of the treaty would have sufficed in helping those who genuinely wanted to understand the whole matter. The agenda of the meeting was determined by the relevant annexures of the treaty and prepared by the court in accordance with the parameters already defined by the treaty for this purpose. The final agenda was provided by the court to both parties, well before the meeting — thus, speculations in newspaper reports are misleading as the first meeting of the court was to determine procedural and administrative matters.

We are legally constrained from disclosing any details as the treaty does not permit this. Furthermore, the court has preserved the requirement of confidentiality. Pakistan recognises its obligations and honours its commitments and, unless a decision to the contrary is taken in the prescribed manner, the government of Pakistan is not at liberty — at this stage at least — to disclose details of the discussions. A disclosure by either party would be a clear violation of the treaty.

This is not the time to be pugnacious, for this is the one issue we need to unite for. This is the time to ignore those trying to divide us by their attempts to sabotage our pursuit of what is in Pakistan’s interest. Let us not be overwhelmed and blinded by our personal antipathies.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 10^th, 2011.