''Water crisis more important than any other issue''

[s90]

By Kalbe Ali
Saturday, 17 Jul, 2010.



ISLAMABAD: The coming week will usher in the second phase of the strategic dialogue between Pakistan and the United States, but behind-the-scene preparations for the talks make it evident that the Pakistan military is in charge of the dialogue and has decided that the focus of the interaction will remain the country’s economic needs, especially water.

The preparations for the upcoming strategic dialogue are taking place at the General Headquarters (GHQ) under the watchful eye of the military top brass, which appears to be so aware of Pakistan’s precarious economic position that it has put these needs at the forefront of the talks, and not security concerns or demands for military hardware.

Papers for the dialogue have been compiled after half a dozen meetings at the GHQ over the past two weeks. These meetings were attended by representatives of all the relevant ministries and headed by Chief of the Army Staff, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

He will also be part of the Pakistani delegation; the other two principals who will represent the country in the talks are Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Finance Minister Hafeez Sheikh.

The composition of the delegation and the preparatory meetings merely reveal the primary role the military is playing domestically despite the existence of a democratic government.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will head the US delegation. Richard Holbrooke, US Special Envoy on Pakistan and Afghanistan, has already arrived in Islamabad and Ms Clinton is expected to arrive on July 18 for the dialogue, which will start on July 19.

Equally interesting is the fact that the strategic dialogue papers prepared for the talks under the supervision of the COAS have placed the water crisis with India as the foremost issue of concern, more important than terrorism or the dispute over Kashmir.

In fact, Dawn has been told that in contrast to earlier meetings, water has replaced the security situation in terms of priority.

Officials told Dawn that resolving the water dispute between Pakistan and India is on top of the agenda in the upcoming strategic dialogue between Pakistan and the United States, which has been set by the military.

“Pakistan will request the US to influence India and play its role in settlement of water dispute, mainly related to diversion of water,” sources said.

According to the paper, the water issue with India is emerging as a serious crisis, which will have long-term implications on the agriculture output and is likely to cause tension between the two countries. It adds that the control of Pakistan’s water share by India is being seen as a major threat to the security and economy of the country.

The document highlights that more than two dozen water projects under way or planned on the western rivers in occupied Kashmir will enable India to control the flow of water into Pakistani territory.

Dawn has learnt that the concern, which is shared by the Pakistan military, is that the diversion of Pakistan’s water share in hydroelectric projects by India has already led to a shortage, which in turn has caused huge losses to the agriculture sector, including delay in the sowing of major crops and reduction in cultivated area.

The document says that continued diversion of Pakistan’s water share will not just destroy the agriculture sector but also give India an added ability to cause floods in Pakistan during the monsoon seasons.

The paper also argues that this manipulation of water is not just adding to the tension between the countries but also fuelling extremism in rural society as livelihood is affected due to water scarcity.

The other four top items are market access for Pakistani exports to the US, rehabilitation of the power sector, development of agriculture on modern lines and human capital development.

To convince the Americans about the importance of the issues, the Pakistani delegation will tell the Americans that the economic situation is the catalyst for extremism, officials told Dawn.

Last but not least, Pakistan will demand $50 billion over the next 10 years for reconstruction and rehabilitation of the economy and to weed out extremism.

The delegation will also argue that the $1.5 billion per annum Washington is planning to give Pakistan under the Kerry Lugar Act is not sufficient; it is expected to suggest that the annual aid should be $5 billion instead.


©2010 DAWN Media Group

 

[welcome]

i unable to understand which type of water crisis..india is just utilizing river water to make electricity..if we stop the water in dam than how can we produce electricity. i think pak is unusually worrying about indian dams. if pak is worrying that india is building dams to make pak desert than pakstani should study the india-pak dispute history. you will find who attack on whom first....

 

[PlanetWarrior]

We want to control the water by India handing over Kashmir to us. We want $5billion instead of $1.5 billion. We want another $50 billion. Kerry Lugar amounts no longer enough for us. Wait until Hillary reminds them who is the dada in this whole equation

 

[ajtr]

Perhaps India can offer to help Sindh and Baluchistan by diverting water of Chenab ----> Beas---> Sutlej ---> Iindira Gandhi Canal and then a link canal to Sukkur Barrage.That will make Sindh independent of Punjab's water perfidy and colossal wastage ensuring that adequate water flows to Sindh Baluchistan and to Sea as well.Perhaps Sindh/Baloch govt should ask for India's support to divert the waters through Indian canal system to avoid silt, pollution etc., India must use UN environmental agency to recommend some of these thoughts and WB provide provincial loans for them.Sindh Part can be called BBC ( Benazir Bhutto Canal) and Baluchistan part as ISI BC ( India Sindh Inter Baloch Canal).
India can certainly afford to spare some money and arrange much more from International organisations. Indian Engineers are certainly capable of achieving this feat in quick time.If Sindh and Baluchistan are being so generous with IPI and providing India gas, then it is only proper that india provide them with water.

What I don't understand is, why should India pay transit charges for the gas, when Pakistan does not pay us transit costs for the water.Perhaps India should raise this question in next IWT meet.

The conflict can be exemplified in the terms for the resumption of water delivery to Pakistan from the Indian headworks, worked out at an Inter-Dominican conference held in Delhi on 3-4 May 1948. India agreed to the resumption of flow, but maintained that Pakistan could not claim any share of those waters as a matter of right (Caponera, 1987, p. 511). This position was reinforced by the Indian claim that, since Pakistan had agreed to pay for water under the Standstill Agreement of 1947, Pakistan had recognized India's water rights. Pakistan countered that they had the rights of prior appropriation, and that payments to India were only to cover operation and maintenance costs (Biswas, 1992, p. 204).

the genesis of the water conflict and IWT. But on a serious note this idea needs to be pushed through more seriously.


1. If pakistan likes of the idea of making border irrelevant then there is a possiblity of diverting waters to various channel, existing and yet to the constructed/thought of and manage water more scientifically through future cooperation.
2.If under Article VII (1) (b) and (C) as well as VII(2) of IWT future cooperation takes place then there is provision for paying sums as may be requested by other paty for New drainage works.
3. Such engineering works are possible if pakistan cooperates .The water diverted from Chenab Formula will be delivered to Sindh Baluch without retaining it within India. Pakistan may pay transit charges to ensure that indians are in some way ethically bound not to harm water interest of pakistan.
4. IGC might need some rework as to its capacity to carry so much water and deliver it to Pakistan at Sukkur. Such headworks are not a new concept and in fact waters were sent to Pakistan through Headworks situated in India.Release at these places are also monitored in accordance with IWT.
5. So there should not be much difficulty in flow towards sukkur. In fact this was one of the grouse of Pakistan against IGC. If it is breached water will flow towards Pakistan side.
6. I have no objection to using Janta money ( IMF.WB.ADB USAID Japanese ODA etc) and using our money to make inroads into them. I like the idea and infact is being practiced in some ways by India.

According to Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are for the use of Pakistan, and its waters (mostly) are not to be diverted for India's use. Can India decide what should be the point of entry into Pakistan for the waters of the Western Rivers? Can India change the flow of the river, or technically speaking the flow of the water in those rivers, so that the waters do not go through AK or Punjab, but rather e.g. through Sindh?

IWT has underlying tone of conflict management and hence restrictions on new constructions, especially of storage works, hydroelectric work, ROR plants, river works channels etc in such a way not to cause material damage to the other party ( primarily Pakistan). IWT annexure extensively cover these aspects. But point of entry of water is perhaps assumed to be in its natural course as otherwise it would be deemed to cause material damage.

IWT does not expressly prohibits new canal works . It is here " irrelevant borders" come into play. The trust deficit , that Pakistan and India often talk about could also be bridged by proposing such a diversion which would benefit a large water starved population of Paa'stan primarily due to stealing of waters by Pakistan's Punjab. Punjab almost wastes 30-40% of water due to various factors and less water becomes available to sindh and baluchistan. So if Pakistan reposes its trust in India and allows this proposal to come through IWT does not prohibit it. But if Pakistan says it would cause material damage to their interest then India might not propose such an idea. Theoretically , yes it is possible using recourse to Art VII of IWT.

But on second thought this idea can be worked out and put in Permanent Indus commission for deliberation and Pakistan can be asked to bridge trust deficit by actually showing faith in Good Indian Intentions. Pakistan must move forward and explore new avenues for cooperation, keep the good work done by home minister P. chidambram and SM Krishna with their visits to Pakistan, take the process forward in a demonstrable manner.