news details |
|
|
| India, Pak abides by World Bank advice | | Will Baglihar lead to neutral mediation in J&K? | | BL KAK
NEW DELHI | FEB 18
At a time when Gen. Parvez Musharraf has renewed the talk in support of third-party mediation for the resolution of the Kashmir issue, some political circles in Delhi and in Jammu and Kashmir appear to favour the talk in the context of the "success" by the World Bank-appointed neutral expert on the Baglihar hydro-electric project dispute between India and Pakistan.
Can the verdict on Jammu's Baglihar dam point the way to that tired chestnut for peace and in Islamabad's current favourite mantra "move from conflict management to conflict resolution"? Can it be done again in setting a maritime boundary in Sir Creek by the 2009 international cut off date or turn the world's highest battlefield, the Siachen glacier, into a UN monitored zone of peace? Or is it a one-off? A deal that simply cannot be replicated.
If Kashmir is an example of how years of lingering animosity could flare into a bitter uprising some 40 years later, stoked into consuming hundreds of lives and fed on a grievance, then the water wars that have roiled so far in the background could make even coming climate change look good.
What is it then, about the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), about Baglihar that makes it seem immune to the Indo-Pak virus? Brokered by the World Bank in 1960 and revisited by neutral expert, Raymond Lafitte, through last year, he delivered a verdict on the Baglihar dam that was welcomed in New Delhi and Islamabad. India must reduce the height of the dam, crowed Pakistan. India had already offered to do so before Islamabad referred it to the experts, the project goes ahead with only minor modifications to the project, insist the Indians.
Behind the curious phraseology of Pakistan's Water Minister Liaquat Jatoi and his Indian counterpart Prof. Saifuddin Soz (a Kashmiri) both of whom quickly used battle terms-- "victory" and a "win-win"-- is the underlying unease, the deep fear that exists over any settlement being seen as favouring one side or the other, and its consequent knock-on effect on internal politics over accusations of conceding too much.
Apart from the size of the dam, the political subtext to the dispute is this-- that Pakistan believed India was "pitting the Kashmiris against Pakistan" by denying Kashmiris water and power, and in one masterstroke turning the population against Pakistan while simultaneously condemning large parts of the fertile Punjab to flooding or desertification, depending on whether India chooses to open or shut the sluice gates. Islamabad sees the building of three dams in Jammu and Kashmir-- the Kishenganga, the Uri on the Jhelum, and two others on the Chenab's tributary--as a clear violation of the IWT.
Baglihar was referred to the World Bank by Pakistan in 2006 after the two failed to agree on the height of the dam, the introduction of gated spillways to control silting and the need for, and the size of, water storage. But Pakistan referred only the Baglihar dam dispute to the World Bank, which is a signatory not a guarantor of the bilateral treaty, inked by governments untainted by the blood and gore of the Kashmir insurgency.
Contrary to public perception, Baglihar is only one among several water disputes. Take the Salal dam, which Islamabad says like Baglihar can wreck Punjab. Will Pakistan refer Salal to the World Bank or the Kishenganga which Pakistan believes could submerge, displace the Gurez valley? What happens to the equally contentious Wullar Lake barrage?
Indian experts believe it will moderate monsoon flooding of the Jhelum, and potentially boost power production in the Uri dam in Indian Kashmir and the Mangla dam in Pakistan. Islamabad disagrees. Despite the current papering over of underlying tensions over Kashmir - Pakistan has not joined the chorus on human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir - and the hope that Baglihar could be the precursor to settling boundary differences, the dispute over scarce precious resources like water and power is a portent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
