EDITORIAL (December 02 2008): India's Indus Water Treaty Commissioner G. Ranganathan visited the Marala Headworks to assess the flow of Chenab with his Pakistani counterpart, Jamaat Ali Shah. A historical perspective with respect to the Treaty as well as Marala Headworks in particular is critical to understanding the strength of Pakistan's case in this particular instance.
The Indus system of rivers comprises three western rivers - the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab and three eastern rivers - the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi. With minor exceptions, the Indus Water Treaty, brokered by the World Bank, gives India exclusive use of all of the waters of the eastern rivers and their tributaries before the point where the rivers enter Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan has exclusive use of the western rivers. Chenab, the bone of contention in the recent instance, is a western river.
Marala, located in Sialkot district, is a huge hydro-engineering project built in 1968 with a maximum discharge of 1.1 million cusecs. It was designed to control water flow and flood control in river Chenab - a 1086 km long river which originates in the Kulu and Kangra districts of Himachal Pradesh, fed by the tributaries, Chandra and Bagha, as it enters Jammu and Kashmir near Kishtwar. The Indus Water Treaty requires an inflow of 55,000 cusecs to Marala Headworks. Pakistan's contention is that in the month of August water inflow was as low as 22,000 cusecs.
It is relevant to note at this point that the Indian governments had abided by the Indus Water Treaty even when the two countries were at war. However, with growing energy shortages in India, the Indian government announced the building of several dams - including Baglihar - that violated the spirit and letter of the Treaty. The government of Pakistan protested against Baglihar dam; however, our case presented for arbitration to the World Bank, as per the Treaty, was weakened by the inordinate delay in seeking arbitration - a delay that was in India's interest because it allowed India to complete the construction of Baglihar and present it as a fait accompli rather than as a proposed project whose construction could be negotiated.
And the Pakistan government, in spite of statements in this regard, has still to present its case to the international court. Many in Pakistan argue that the government must hasten to table its concerns for arbitration with respect to Kishan Ganga dam because any delay in doing so would enable India to present that as a fait accompli as well.
Why did the Indian Indus Water Treaty Commissioner deem it prudent to visit Marala at this point in time? Because the Indians refused to accept the water data provided by Pakistan and alleged it was 'incorrect'. It has been reported that the Pakistani Irrigation officials briefed the Indian Indus Water Treaty Commissioner that prolonged stoppage of water by India led to the closure of Marala-Ravi link canal for several months that adversely affected crops across the Punjab.
One wonders if they succeeded in convincing the Indian Indus Water Treaty Commissioner, given his agenda. However, the Pakistani Punjab is the food belt of the country. With the country currently grappling with extremely adverse macroeconomic indicators, the present government had focused on attaining agricultural self-sufficiency as a means to dealing with foreign exchange problems facing the country.
The fact that the Indian government has compromised Pakistan's capacity to provide irrigation water to Punjab, is being termed as economic terrorism by many in this country. To deal with this requires going to the several fora available, arbitration as well as seeking justice at the international court, and ensuring that decisions in this regard are taken promptly and competent lawyers hired, domestically or internationally, to deal with the issues.
