Is India a victim of its own policy?

[BanglaBhoot]

Bottom Line

Is India a victim of its own policy?

Harun ur Rashid

The Daily Star – August 14, 2007

Unilateral water diversion, or withdrawal of water from international or common rivers, has been the long-standing policy of India. India bothered little about the concerns of a lower riparian country, such as Bangladesh, in diverting water from common rivers.

In 1896, the "Harmon Doctrine" was propounded by the US Attorney General Judson Harmon, claiming that Mexico was not entitled to the water from an international river, the Rio Grande.
The doctrine emphasised territorial sovereignty over an international river. It means that, within its territory, a state can do whatever it wishes with the water of an international river, and does not need to bother about the consequences of its withdrawal on a lower riparian nation.

India argued in favour of the Harmon Doctrine in the mid-70s with Bangladesh (I was Director General of South Asia), though the US itself had discarded and discredited it in 1906 when it concluded a treaty with Mexico relating to sharing of water of the Rio Grande.

When India argued the relevance of the Harmon Doctrine in the '70s, Bangladesh counter-argued that the "Helsinki Principles", which would entitle a co-riparian of a reasonable and equitable share of water of an international/common river or drainage basin, had replaced it in 1966.

Use of river water

The use of river water is of two types -- non-consumptive and consumptive. Navigation is a non-consumptive use of water because river water is not depleted or reduced through navigation. Consumptive use of water consists of withdrawing water for agricultural and other purposes. Consumptive use always reduces the water in rivers.

A river knows no political boundaries between countries. It flows as an indivisible unit, and if it is interfered with at the upper stream, the lower riparian country will be affected. That is why international law recognizes the right of each riparian country to enjoy all the advantages deriving from river waters for the welfare and economic prosperity of its people.

At least 56 rivers flow from India into Bangladesh. The largest of them, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Meghna (GBM), flow through Bangladesh until they meet the Bay of Bengal, creating one of the biggest deltas in the world. It is estimated that 25,000 square miles within Bangladesh can be designated as a delta, an area equal to Belgium and the Netherlands together.

Bangladesh is a land of rivers, and swimming has been the birth-right of all Bangladeshi children. Rivers have been the lifeline of the people of Bangladesh, although in the monsoon season they often cause floods. Without monsoon rain and the rivers, Bangladesh's environment, and its cultural tradition, music, and folk tales based on rivers, will die.

Agriculture is the backbone of the country, and 76% of the people live in villages. Water plays the most vital role in the country's economy. 85% percent of the water comes from the Ganges and the Brahmaputra during the dry season (November to May).

Millions of people are directly or indirectly dependent on river water for their livelihood. Water is vital for agriculture, fishery, and the flora and fauna, and constitutes an indivisible part of people's lives.

Depletion of water in rivers puts Bangladesh in a very critical situation, especially in navigation, agriculture, and way of life. Farmers, fishermen, and the forests, are all adversely affected by depletion of water in rivers.

Water dispute and Bangladesh

The unilateral withdrawal of water from the upper reaches by India has been a concern for Bangladesh. If India withdraws water heavily from common or international rivers, such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, there will be less available in Bangladesh. This is obvious.
The water dispute with India has been going on since the birth of Bangladesh. It started with India's ill-conceived Farakka Barrage on the Ganges (11 miles from Bangladesh's border), for diverting water from the Hoogly river for flushing silt, not for agriculture.

India's pre-occupation has been how to divert water from common rivers without sharing information, or consulting, with Bangladesh. For example, information regarding the storage of water of the Barak river, by building the 1,500 MW Tipaimukh hydroelectric dam, has yet to be shared with Bangladesh.

India has embarked on constructing dams on, and diverting water from, many common rivers, such as the Teesta, the Gumti, and the Khowai, without any agreement with Bangladesh. India had reportedly blocked-of streams (such as Muhuri, Chagalnaiya, Fulchari, Kachua and many others) flowing into Bangladesh from Tripura. As a result, as of 1979, eight chars (islets) were detected in the tributaries of Muhuri and Kahua, and they have blocked water flow in Bangladesh.

Since these rivers are in India, it did not care to discuss, consult, or come to an agreement with Bangladesh on the blockage or diversion or consumptive use of the water, although a Joint River Commission had been formed in 1972.

China's proposed diversion of water

According to a report by an Indian writer, China is attempting to dam or redirect the southward flow of water from the Tibetan plateau, the starting point of many rivers, such as the Indus, the Mekong, the Yangtze, the Yellow, the Salween, the Brahmaputra, the Karnali and the Sutlej.

According to the same writer, China's intensive farming needs water, and it is increasingly turning its attention to the water reserves of the Tibetan plateau. China is presently toying with massive inter-basin and inter-river water transfer projects.

Furthermore, several Chinese projects in west-central Tibet have a bearing on river-water flow into India, but China refuses to share information with India. The same tactics India adopted with Bangladesh are now likely to bite India.

The writer also pointed out two Chinese projects that might affect India adversely. One is the proposed Great South-North Water Transfer project for diverting Tibetan water, and the first phase calls for building 300-kilometres of tunnels and channels to draw water from the Jingsha, the Yalong and the Dadu rivers on the eastern rim of the Tibetan plateau.

The second phase of the project is more damaging, because it proposes to re-route the Brahmaputra river northward. In fact, the writer points out that China has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra enters India.

India does not seem to have considered that the Chinese water experts and hydrologists may have acquired the technology by which the Tibetan plateau waters could be re-routed northward towards China.

Now India has woken up. China is reportedly doing the same thing that India did with its rivers in relation to Bangladesh. China does not find it necessary to consult, discuss, and sit down with India about the proposed diversion of waters from the Tibetan Plateau. There cannot be one rule for India and China, and another for India and Bangladesh.

There is another, wider, dimension on availability of fresh water. The increased demand for fresh water has prompted the construction of dams and barrages on international rivers, and it is reported that 60% of the world's largest rivers have been interrupted by the artificial structures. Many of them were built in agreement with riparian countries, and about 200 treaties are now in force for the management of common water resources.

Fresh water is getting scarce according to a Unesco study. The average supply of water is expected to drop by one-third within 20 years. Unesco points out that up to 7 billion people could face water shortages by 2020, and global warming may cause severe water shortages in 50 countries. South Asia is one of the regions to be adversely affected, partly because of melting of the Himalayan glaciers due to global warming.

Water experts believe that water disputes on intra-state and inter-state level may increase in future. It is the potential inter-state conflict over river water resources that may be of greater concern.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/08/14/d70814020334.htm

 

[aksingh]

As far as I am aware India has no policy regarding water sharing with Bangladesh and therefore India cannot be held responsible internationally nor morally.

case closed.

India has the Indus water treaty with Pakistan which is a shining example of India's diplomacy and maturity that it has never sought to exploit it. Please search the net if you don't believe me.

Water is a less of an issue in India as compared to China since it lacks adequate fresh water sources. Please read up on the China situation to realise their critical situation in this regard.

Water disputes in India

For the states water is more of a political issue and is brought to bring in votes or to secure more water for farmers during certain seasons. Water treaties I believe are a central subject therefore the central government and participatory state governments can also play spoilsport if they belong to different parties. Anyways once a matter goes to Supreme court tch tch all get their knuckles rapped and everything is normal (BTW supreme court is the highest authority in India).

Water situation in India

There is more of an issue of global warming, changing rainfall patterns, river population and water table receding affecting the water situation. Though the future looks grim India can always divert all the water meant for Pakistan and Bangladesh for its needs. ;-) kidding.

Anyways rain water harvesting is being implemented albeit at an Indian pace and the ambitious river link up plan has also been started.
India has started cleaning up the Ganges with positive results as the satellite maps point out.
The government has realised that indeed water levels are dropping so they have also thought of bringing technology like the gulf to convert sea water to potable water in case of an emergency though this is still speculative and planting more trees.....
India is yet to come out with an environment, water and global warming policy of the future?? though bharat stage 2, CNG, ministry of alternative sources, wind power generation, save ganges etc policies have been implemented to check pollution and curb global warming with mixed execution and results.

 

[alamgir]

India has the Indus water treaty with Pakistan which is a shining example of India's diplomacy and maturity that it has never sought to exploit it. Please search the net if you don't believe me.


India-Pakistan Talks on Baglihar dam End in Failure
Pakistan Times Foreign Desk

NEW DELHI (India): The talks between Pakistan and India on Baglihar hydro-electric project ended in failure on Thursday as the dialogue remained inconclusive.

The dam is being constructed by India on Chenab River in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

Secretary Water & Power, Ashfaq Mehmood told journalists in New Delhi that India has not accepted Pakistan’s points on the issue. “The talks have not borne any fruit. They have refused to accept our demands and the talks will not continue now”, he said.

Mehmood said Pakistan side has done every bit to ensure compromise but all efforts failed. “We want to bring positive end to the dialogue-process but it didn’t materialise that way”, he said.

He said two sides held six sessions on the issue. “The experts from both sides discussed every point but unfortunately we did not come to any positive end”, he said.

The Future Strategy

Mehmood said this was final round of talks as far as Pakistan was concerned. “Now we are going back and the government will decide the future strategy”.

Indian Secretary Water Resources, VK Duggal while briefing journalists after the talks in New Delhi, said that the talks would continue as the efforts were being made to come to some conclusions.

The two sides extensively discussed the ways and possibilities to reach an understanding and remove differences identified by Pakistan relating to the basic design and level of water storage of the project as per the guidelines of the Indus Water Treaty 1960.

Secretary, Water & Power, Ashfaq Mehmood headed Pakistan’s side at the parleys.

Optimism on a Final Round

It is hoped that there will be a final round of discussions. They will try their best to resolve the issue bilaterally without compromising on the basic principles of the Water Treaty.

Pakistan has consistently made it clear that the 450-mega watts hydro-electric project violates its rights as a lower riparian country granted by the 1960 accord.

The two sides held talks on Tuesday and Wednesday as well without any real indications of success.

The dispute centers on India’s plans to construct the Baglihar Dam over the Chenab River in Indian-controlled Kashmir’s Jammu region. The dam is being built on two 450-megawatt phases.

Pakistan says, the dam in Chandrakot in southern Doda district violates the 1960 Indus Water Treaty on river water sharing, one of the nuclear rivals’ most enduring agreements that has held through two wars between the countries.

Islamabad fears the dam could interfere with the flow of water from the Chenab River and deprive it of vital irrigation in Pakistan’s wheat-growing Punjab province. New Delhi says the fears are groundless.

The World Bank-negotiated accord bars India from interfering with the flow of the three rivers feeding Pakistan—Indus, Chenab and Jhelum—but allows it to generate electricity from them.

The first phase of the Baglihar Dam was due to be completed in 2004 but has been delayed by the dispute.

Wullar Barrage

India and Pakistan are also trying to negotiate a solution to another dispute over construction of the Wullar Barrage on the river Jhelum, some 30 kilometers north of Srinagar.

India began constructing the barrage in 1985 but halted it two years later after Islamabad said the construction would affect the flow of Jhelum river water into Pakistan.

While the Wullar Barrage is part of an eight-point agenda chalked out by the rivals to resolve various disputes through a dialogue launched in January 2004, the Baglihar dam is not on the list.

FO Spokesman

Meanwhile, Foreign Office spokesman Masood Khan talking to VOA expressed the hope that India would respect Pakistan’s just reservations on Baglihar dam according to the agreement, and would make sincere and concrete efforts for resolving the issue.

“Under the Indus Water Treaty, India has certainly got some limited rights while Pakistan has got the right to use the water of Chenab River,” the spokesman said.

“Our stance is that, if the construction of dam project is completed in accordance with its existing specification, it will harm Pakistan’s rights,” he said.

To a question the spokesman said that Pakistan did not agree with India’s point of view that dam was not being constructed with the aim of storage of water.

“We are discussing the issue within the legal limits or technical framework which have been mentioned in the agreement itself,” he said adding its parameters were very clear.

He said the Indus Water Treaty had usually been successful and effective, but the Baglihar dam had put a sign of interrogation on this agreement.

He urged the Indian authorities to suspend construction work on Baglihar dam project unless reconciliation was made between the two sides.

Responding to a question about dispute of Wullar Barrage he said, the issue had not yet been resolved between the two countries, but there was a minor difference.

The construction work on Wullar Barrage has been stopped, he added.

Asked to what extent he was optimistic with regard to the solution of Sir Creek dispute through negotiations the spokesman said, “I believe that India and Pakistan should resolve every issue through negotiations because both the countries are aware of the destructions of war.”

“That is why Pakistan is stressing the need of resolving the disputes with India through diplomatic channels, he added.●
www.PakistanTimes.net | www.DailyPakistanTimes

 

[aksingh]

Editorial: Indus Water Treaty and confidence building

The ongoing dispute between Pakistan and India over latter’s decision to construct the Baglihar Hydropower Project on Chenab River in violation of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty — under which Pakistan is allocated water from the three western rivers of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — seems to be reaching a head. While India appears determined to go ahead with the construction of the dam scheduled for commissioning in 2004, Pakistan, having exhausted all bilateral means to prevent India from constructing the controversial gat-structure — it would deprive Pakistan of nearly 7000 cusecs of water per day — has decided to invoke article IX(2)a of the treaty to bring in a neutral expert to decide the issue.

The Federal Minister for Water and Power, Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, went public on the issue Wednesday, saying the government of Pakistan would put India on notice regarding appointment of a neutral expert within 15 days beginning Thursday (May 8) under the dispute settlement mechanism. Mr Sherpao said the summary sent to the Prime Minister’s Secretariat following the deadlock at the February meeting of the PCIW (Permanent Commission of Indus Water) has been approved by Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali. The ministry will now set the ball rolling, according to Mr Sherpao.

The controversial project, especially some of its technical features, has been hanging fire for nearly four years now. Voices have been raised in India, and the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, for scrapping the treaty that has so far survived the India-Pakistan conflict. The treaty, flaunted as a major success story around the world, was made possible by the World Bank, which is also its guarantor. Highly technical and intricate, IWT has an elaborate dispute settlement mechanism, including arbitration by a neutral expert if bilateral negotiations fail to work out. Were a neutral expert to come in at this stage, however, as indicated by Pakistan, this would be the first such intervention by a third party since the inception of the treaty.

Intriguingly, during the last round of PCIW at Islamabad, Pakistan’s Commissioner of PCIW, announced to the press February 6 that India had accepted appointment of Pakistani inspectors to inspect the Baglihar site and report their findings to the PCIW. The very next day, however, newspapers reported a deadlock, following which Pakistan began working on the option of getting a neutral expert to decide the issue. At some point, the inspection issue fell by the wayside. There is of course the internal Indian political dimension to the issue also. Former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah chose to criticise the Indus Water Treaty saying it was signed by India without taking into account the interests of the (disputed) state. Only last month, new Chief Minister Mufti Sayeed came on-line and said he would not allow any Pakistani inspectors to come to the state to inspect the project. Other voices in India, especially among the rightwing Hindu parties and groups, have called for scrapping the treaty. Last year in December, after India’s decision to mobilise its troops following the abortive attack on its parliament, press reports indicated India might put the squeeze on Pakistan by scrapping the IWT. This was later denied by New Delhi.

Foreign Office sources say Pakistan had asked India to give it a timetable to resolve the issue but did not get a satisfactory response. In the meantime, India has been forging ahead with the construction. Islamabad justifiably thinks that New Delhi wants to give it fait accompli by delaying a resolution of the issue until the project is actually completed.

The IWT allocated Pakistan the waters of the three western rivers after which Pakistan constructed a canal system to carry water from the western rivers into areas that were previously irrigated by the three eastern rivers the treaty gave to India. Subsequently, Pakistan built the Mangla and Tarbela dams and several other similar facilities on the waters of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. Similarly India has built, and continues to do so, various dams and barrages on the Ravi, Sutlej and Beas.

River water is Pakistan’s lifeline. The IWT is accepted by both sides as an equal treaty but is doubly vital for Pakistan as the lower riparian. Loose talk by some Indian politicians during the standoff forced many people across the world to sit up and take notice because international law is very clear on the issue of denial of water to a lower riparian as a legitimate casus belli. At a time when Pakistan is doing all it can to respond to India’s gesture of a dialogue after an 18-month hiatus, it is absolutely necessary for New Delhi to allay the fear in Pakistan that India is bent upon depriving it of its fair share of water to destroy its economy. There is a strong sense in Pakistan that Kashmir is strategically vital to Pakistan also because of its riverheads. Only a cooperative framework, across-the-board as well as in regard to the existing treaty, can allow both Pakistan and India to exploit Himalayas’ water potential.

Clearly, at this stage, when both sides are putting in place various confidence-building measures, the litmus test of the spirit of cooperation would be how soon, and effectively, the two sides can resolve the issue, especially since it can be tackled under a treaty that has held for 43 years. *

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-5-2003_pg3_1

Your Kashmiri brothers are against sending you water .. hahahahaa
hahahahahaahahaha ...
Kashmiri's people for whom you have waged war with India don't want a treaty with you...
hhahahahahaha...

 

[aksingh]

Editorial: Don’t mess with Indus Water Treaty

India’s water resources minister, Bijoya Chakaraborty, has been quoted as saying that India is seriously thinking of scrapping the 42-year-old Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan. If India decides to scrap the treaty, Pakistan will face a drought and Pakistanis will beg for every drop of water, the minister is reported to have said. What should we make of this?
Two things need be said here. Firstly, as Dr Ijaz Hussain in his Daily Times article (Can India terminate the Indus Water Treaty? May 15) wrote clearly: “Article XII (4) of the Treaty completely rules out its unilateral termination... the Treaty can only be terminated on the basis of another treaty ‘concluded for that purpose between the two governments’. Dr Hussain’s article framed the issue of the Treaty’s abrogation from various angles and then shot down all possibilities. Yet, the possibility that a state hell-bent on doing something silly can never be ruled out. In this respect, wrote Dr Hussain: “... Pakistan has several options before it. [It] can raise the issue with India at a diplomatic level for its amicable resolution... it can set in motion the dispute settlement procedure by invoking article IX of the Treaty. This means referral of the matter in the first place to the Permanent Indus Commission and to the Court of Arbitration in case the former procedure fails to give satisfaction in the matter.”

But most importantly, denying a lower riparian its due share of water and, as the Indian minister said, forcing Pakistanis to beg for every single drop, is the casus belli (an act of war) if there ever was one. At the end of the day, the water of the Indus river system is the source of the very life of Pakistan, and this is much more important than anything else, including Kashmir. The fact that all of it flows down from Kashmir also creates a linkage between the two issues that is more explosive than the nuclear issue. Indeed, for India to even begin to think that it can scrap the Treaty and deprive Pakistan of water is to push Pakistanis to think of nuking it out of existence.

Therefore, our sense is that the Indian minister’s statement is a lot of hot air. But precisely for that reason, New Delhi should leash such people, including the puppet chief minister of Indian-held Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah, who is the real albatross around New Delhi’s neck. He is squarely responsible for bringing up this issue in recent days just because he wants to make money from a project on the Chenab river and also because he has his eyes on the president’s office.

The Indus Water Treaty has survived the ups and downs in India-Pakistan relations and will doubtless survive the current crisis. But, on our part, we too should not try to project the Treaty as a disputed mechanism. Whatever objections Pakistan might have to some projects India is allegedly planning upstream against the spirit of the Treaty can be calmly and rationally discussed at the appropriate forum, which is the Permanent Indus Commission.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-5-2002_pg3_1

 

[aksingh]

sonny boy If we wanted to we could have acted like some of our neighbour states(aka you) and stopped the water supply but we did not why because India is a magnanimous country..

 

[BanglaBhoot]

This is only one of the complaints but India did not show any magnanimity when building the Farraka Barrage or now with the Tipaimukh Dam. Now that it finds itself in the same position as Bangladesh but in regard to China it is complaining. That does not sound like magnanimity but hypocrisy and double standards.

 

[Bull]

This is only one of the complaints but India did not show any magnanimity when building the Farraka Barrage or now with the Tipaimukh Dam. Now that it finds itself in the same position as Bangladesh but in regard to China it is complaining. That does not sound like magnanimity but hypocrisy and double standards.

And would you complain to the chineese? well you were ready to go to bed with the chineese to corner India, now what?