The Baglihar controversy

A delegation of Pakistan's Indus Water Commission (PIWC) will visit India from October 18 to 24 at the invitation of Indian government to conduct physical inspection of the controversial Baglihar Dam built over the River Chenab in Indian-occupied Kashmir, according to PIWC chief, Jamaat Ali Shah.
The visit comes in the wake of illegal diversion of over 200,000 cusecs of water by India in September for filling the controversial dam, constructed to generate electricity, which in itself is an infringement of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960.
The blocking of water is going to cause huge economic loss to Pakistan in terms of agricultural produce, as it coincides with the sowing of Rabi crops. President Zardari had taken up the issue with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last month, and the forthcoming visit to India by a PIWC team headed by Jamaat Ali Shah is believed to be linked to the Zardari-Singh talks.
In a recent TV interview, Shah stated that Pakistan had documentary evidence that India had stolen water from Pakistan's allocated share, which, viewed in a broader perspective, is indicative also of India's unwillingness to implement the 1960 Water Treaty in letter and spirit.
The shortage of water at Marala, which the Indian Water Commissioner has attributed to change of weather, has been recorded up to 200,000 cusecs; this poses a threat to Pakistan's crops. Surprisingly, Pakistani officials have yet to calculate the loss, in financial terms, from reduction in crop production.
The financial loss must be precisely calculated before Shah's India visit as it will help calculate the amount of compensation, Shah has said he will demand from India. Irrigation officials have, meanwhile, said that Pakistan, being the lower riparian state, has a foolproof case against India's blocking of water during a crucial stage of Rabi crop.
The Indus Treaty specifically forbids construction of any storage by India on the rivers allocated to Pakistan. However, India has hinged its violation of the treaty on a technical point that unlike a dam or a reservoir, construction of a diversion barrage or of a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project cannot be termed a storage, which is clearly a fallacious argument.
Secondly, the Indians argue that even run-of-the-river projects involve construction of structures, and any structure on a river does not raise the water level, which again is a negation of the ground realities. Pakistan's stand, on the other hand, is that the Baglihar dam is a storage, and hence prohibited under provisions of the Water Treaty.
Secondly, Pakistan is rightly apprehensive about the leverage the Baglihar Dam project provides to India either to reduce water flow into Pakistan or suddenly release the stored water and cause flooding, which has happened in the past. Pakistan's objection to the construction of Baglihar Dam is thus both water-related and security-related, which makes the project entirely unacceptable to Pakistan.
In fact, Pakistan's opposition to the construction of Wullar, Baglihar and Kishanganga projects is based on equally sound reasons. Pakistan's Water Commissioner has rightly said that the Indians will be asked at the forthcoming meeting as to how they had filled the dam, if not out of Pakistan's share.
Again, Shah has rightly argued that when water is scarce then the Indus Treaty forbids the Indians to fill the reservoir. But since they have filled the reservoir despite water scarcity, 200,000 cusecs of water used for filling the dam definitely came from Pakistan's share.
According to an expert, it seems that the World Bank will eventually have to fulfil its obligations under the Water Treaty if the bilateral talks fail to yield a result that is acceptable to the two sides. The Bank cannot shirk responsibility by claiming that it is not a guarantor.
Further, Pakistan rightly harbours suspicions regarding India's real intentions because of the design of the project, which has both an agriculture-related and a security-related dimension to it. It is hoped that the talks will prove conducive to evolving a consensual solution acceptable to both countries.