ISLAMABAD:
Although the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) has already announced its partial award on the controversial Kishanganga dam, the festering dispute is far from over.
Pakistan and India may soon enter a new legal battle if New Delhi doesn’t change the design of the hydropower project being built on the Neelum-Jehlum river in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.
Sources told The Express Tribune that Islamabad has asked New Delhi to not restart the construction of the dam until differences over the project have been resolved either amicably or through the intervention of a neutral expert. They added that since India is noncommittal, Pakistan may be forced to approach a neutral expert earlier than expected.
Both legal and technical issues surrounding the dam remain unresolved. But while the legal issues will be removed once the ICA announces its final award in December 2013, technical aspects have yet to be put before a neutral expert.
Meanwhile, experts believe the process is being delayed.
According to an official of the ministry of water and power, Pakistan’s Commissioner for Indus Water Mirza Asif Baig had opposed the initiation of the process shortly after the conclusion of the ICA hearing in August last year. Baig recommended taking up the technical issues before a neutral expert after the ICA announced the partial award.
Other agencies, however, suggested that the process be started as soon as possible, given the time-consuming nature of the appointment of a neutral expert and since it was clear that the interim order would be vacated in the award and India would proceed with construction.
The matter was discussed again in an inter-ministerial meeting, where Baig insisted that the issue be taken up with the relevant Indian authorities and they be given an opportunity to clarify their position. Some participants suggested that an undertaking be sought from New Delhi, assuring that construction of the dam would not begin until the dispute is resolved.
On March 18, the Pakistani foreign ministry sent a letter to the Indian High Commission in Islamabad saying that unless the design of Kishanganga dam was modified, Pakistan would have to move to a neutral expert.
“The government of Pakistan requests to be informed whether the government of India has since reconsidered its position and is now willing to make design changes in accordance with the design criteria stipulated in the (Indus Water) treaty,” it stated.
In the letter, Pakistan maintained in light of ICA’s partial award, India could no longer justify the provision of deep orifice gated spillways in the dam’s design. “In this regard, a modification of the design is necessitated to ensure compliance of the criterion stipulated in treaty.”
India had previously taken the stance that the design of Kishanganga dam was consistent with the Indus Water Treaty. According to Baig, appointing a neutral expert will be necessary to resolve differences if India continues to maintain this stance.
India is still using delay tactics on this matter, despite the ICA’s award clearly stipulating that all matters between the two countries over the dam must be resolved bilaterally within three months or referred to a third party for resolution.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 1st, 2013.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Udaya, you also failed to give a rebuttal to my point about India's hypocrisy with regards to the Neelum Valley residents.
On a side note, there is a Pakistani project planned on the Neelum too, but on the lower reaches so that the residents of the valley will be spared. Remains to be seen what the impact on Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir and surrounding areas will be, however.
To Thomas: Very easy to make jingoistic comments sitting on your couch, very hard to die in a nuclear war that would destroy both India and Pakistan.
To Udaya: Please read the comments left by Indians on this site. Vitriolic, purile and petty. I actually read one claiming Pakistanis speak "Arabic Urdu" recently. On the whole they are unproductive and narrow minded, also generally communalistic. I've read comments exhorting Indian Muslims to migrate to Pakistan because they voted for it in 1946, others trying to justify Israeli colonialism based on Muslim invasions of India 800 years ago.
http://dawn.com/2013/02/19/india-can-divert-only-minimum-water-from-kishanganga-tribunal/
Please refer to this article, final 2 paragraphs. I hope ET lets it slide.
The recent construction of a dam on the Chenab (touted anyway) is the latest violation. It's important to remember that before the IWT Pakistan had called for water sharing, India insisted on Partition of the rivers and there is effectively no flow of the Ravi and Sutlej into Pakistan today. It's sad how India insisted on turning Punj-ab into Tin-ab. Let's hope it doesn't turn into Koi-nai-ab.
To Thomas: Very easy to make jingoistic comments sitting on your couch, very hard to die in a nuclear war that would destroy both India and Pakistan.
To Udaya: Please read the comments left by Indians on this site. Vitriolic, purile and petty. I actually read one claiming Pakistanis speak "Arabic Urdu" recently. On the whole they are unproductive and narrow minded, also generally communalistic. I've read comments exhorting Indian Muslims to migrate to Pakistan because they voted for it in 1946, others trying to justify Israeli colonialism based on Muslim invasions of India 800 years ago.
http://dawn.com/2013/02/19/india-can-divert-only-minimum-water-from-kishanganga-tribunal/
Please refee to this article. I hope ET lets it slide.
The recent construction of a dam on the Chenab (touted anyway) is the latest violation. It's important to remember that before the IWT Pakistan had called for water sharing, India insisted on Partition of the rivers and there is effectively no flow of the Ravi and Sutlej into Pakistan today. It's sad how India insisted on turning Punj-ab into Tin-ab. Let's hope it doesn't turn into Koi-nai-ab.
@Shehryar - ET please republish: Furthermore, India has actually been violating the Indus Waters Treaty since day It would help if you would refer to the specific clauses of the IWT which are being violated. Mere allegations and questioning the "intellect" of Indians does not make up for logic and reason.
India must scrap the Indus water treaty unilateraly and take Pakis and the Internation Court and the World bank out of the equation. Have some balls , India. Let all these entities sulk!!. Be abrasive India and abrogate the treaty, and what this imbiciles can do!!
One can see the petty immature Indians have taken to their usual revelling in Pakistan’s failure. I am starting to suspect there is a RAW wing dedicated solely to trolling Pakistani websites. But that’s not the point.
To all those celebrating, I would like to remind you thay the Neelum Valley is home to 100,000 people. India was hoping to divert all the water for 8-9 months, which would have turned this beautiful valley into a desert and rendered its people homeless.This Hague ordered a minimum flow of water. Seems they care more for Kashmiris than India.
Funny, given India claims Pakistan Kashmir as it’s own, but doesn’t give a damn for its citizenry, who are even granted nominal representation in the Indian parliament.
Furthermore, India has actually been violating the Indus Waters Treaty since day 1. The list is long but I will state some examples. Dul Hasti, Salal, Baghlihar, Uri-1, diversion of canals in 1965 – endless list.
Simply proclaiming “India has never violated IWT” as many Indians do, without any research is disappointing but shows the intellect of the Indians who frequent this site.Lastly, please do a Google image search of the Neelum valley, and its people. This is a victory for India, but a loss for mankind.
brace yourself for another round of defeat.
Pakistan complaining about delay in handling issues? LMAO.
Construction of Kishanganga Dam +++++++++++++++++++++ Matter being in front of a Arbiter what Pakistan says is irrelevant. What the psuedo court says is only what is relevant.