Water wars next?

In the recent foreign minister-level talks between Pakistan and India, New Delhi has dropped strong hints that it would like the subjects of Jammu and Kashmir and Siachen, as well as water issues, to be excluded from future dialogue. India has decided to drive the last nail in the coffin of the already comatose entity that was the ‘composite dialogue’ process which started in 1997 (and not 2004 as is commonly believed) and has kept hope alive of a lasting settlement of contentious issues. The ‘mechanism’ devised in the June 1997 joint declaration between the two countries was to ensure that no issue would suffer from ‘neglect’. This now appears to be in danger of an untimely demise.

The water apportionment issue was not strictly part of the composite dialogue. Subsequent events, however, proved that it was of vital importance and could be left unresolved only at the country’s peril. Twice in the recent past Pakistan has had the unfortunate experience of a dip in the Chenab water flow because of India’s water controlling ability, thanks to the Baglihar hydroelectric power project. Coming in the sowing season, this arbitrary action hit Pakistan where it hurt most.

Of late, the Pakistan Indus basin water commissioner and his Indian counterpart engaged in talks to tackle the differences over the water and hydroelectric power projects that come under the aegis of the Indus Basin Waters Treaty of 1960. India takes the stance that water issues should come under the purview of the treaty and, therefore, should not be aired in a political forum. India and Pakistan had signed the treaty under which most issues related to distribution of waters had been settled, it was hoped, once for all. The treaty is a comprehensive document covering replacement works, technical designs of proposed projects as well as various ‘mechanisms’ to settle differences between the two parties, including resort to arbitration by a neutral expert, as was done in the case of the Baglihar Dam project.

India has been gnawing at the treaty bit by bit to reduce its effectiveness. This does not augur well for future normalisation of relations between the two countries. The equitable apportionment of waters that was envisaged in the treaty should not be adversely affected since it affects the very existence of the people. Pakistan, as the lower riparian, is more adversely affected. It is too serious a matter to be left at the mercy of the Indus basin waters commissioner.

Differences on water bring to the fore the urgency of addressing the Jammu and Kashmir issue which is inextricably linked to the water and several other matters. Unless this dispute is settled in an equitable and lasting fashion, normalisation of relations between the two will remain a pipe dream.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 27^th, 2010.