What is compensation water? According to the British Dam Society, when a dam is constructed across a river valley, an outlet pipe usually in a tunnel must be provided from the reservoir to allow some water to continue to flow in the river downstream. Sufficient water must be let through to maintain the fish and wildlife that use the river and the natural vegetation in and around it. This water is called compensation water.
Despite repeated assurances on the issue of the unauthorised diversion of Chenab waters which arose as a result of the one-time filling of the newly constructed Baglihar Dam in September 2008, India has yet to compensate Pakistan with 20,000 cusecs of water, according to sources quoted in a Recorder report.
The matter has since been raised at talks between the two countries at different forums, and at different levels. The broader irritant of stoppage or reduced supply of water had formed a part of the talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Zardari on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York, at which Singh had promised uninterrupted flow of Chenab water to Pakistan, but the matter remains unresolved.
Similarly, Singh in his Beijing meeting with Prime Minister Gilani in October, had observed that India wanted to work seriously to resolve the water dispute with Pakistan, and that the issue would not be allowed to affect the ongoing normalisation process between the two neighbouring countries. Similar assurances were repeated at the Singh-Gilani meeting on the sidelines of the 7th Asia-Europe meeting that it would be resolved under the IWT framework.
Meanwhile, according to media reports, there has been a 40 percent decline, from the 10-year average of about 10,000 cusecs, due mainly to construction by India of over a dozen hydropower projects upstream, though there is also a perception that rising aridity could be a contributory cause of the phenomenon.
Initial one-time filling of a newly constructed reservoir, such as Baglihar, is governed by specific provisions of the IWT, under which filling can be done through mutual consent of the two countries.
However, if a consensus solution cannot be evolved, the Treaty authorises India to go ahead with the filling process, subject to two primary conditions in case of the River Chenab projects: One, the filling must be done between June 21 and August 31, when the monsoon is at its peak, and two, the flow in Chenab, above the Marala headworks, must not fall below 55,000 cusecs at any time.
Pakistan maintains that these stipulations were not complied with, while India claims that it had stopped water from August 19 to 28 - an argument falsified by Pakistan, which maintains that the stoppage of the water flow into Chenab had continued till September 5. Jamaat Ali Shah, who had inspected the Baglihar site on October 18, found defects in the dam's design that were inimical to Pakistan's water share under the Water Treaty.
The water flow from the Chenab, which is the lifeline of agriculture at downstream Marala, drastically dropped in the months of September and October, with India snatching away 200,000 cusecs of water at a time when the paddy crop was ripening. This crop needs large quantities of water. Pakistan demanded compensation for the 200,000 cusecs of water shortfall in the Chenab River, caused to the paddy crop.
It is said that over 10 million acres of arable land was affected due to the stoppage of water in Sialkot, Gujranwala and Sheikhupura, Jhang and Faisalabad districts, the major cropping regions of Punjab. The fact is that India released only 35,000 instead of the 55,000 cusecs. Secondly, the Water Treaty stipules high-level outlets; and one of Pakistan's objections was that these were not high enough.
India, on the other hand, based its position on a purely technical point to justify its violation of the Water Treaty, ie unlike a dam or a reservoir, the construction of a diversion barrage or a run-of-the river hydroelectric project cannot be called a reservoir. This is clearly a fallacious argument. Thirdly, Pakistan's apprehension that the dam gives to India the leverage to reduce water flow into Pakistan has been substantiated by India's diversion of Chenab waters.
Some experts maintain that the signing of the Indus Basin Water Treaty by Pakistan was an unwise act that has had a stunting effect on our agriculture economy. It is said that India plans to construct around a dozen Baglihar-type dams in IHK, and many projects are at advanced stages of execution. Viewed in the hindsight of experience, our water and power bureaucracy's gradual shift of focus away from hydropower has generated the whole trouble, which has indirectly given India an edge in the race for water resources in the region.
Even the Water Treaty recognises the concept of fait accompli. It is entirely our fault if we have not been goal-oriented enough to outperform India's water bureaucracy or its policymakers. The government needs to initiate fast-track implementation of hydroelectric projects, which alone can meet the country's water and power needs. Meanwhile, Pakistan should move the arbitration tribunal to seek redress in the water loss compensation it has suffered due to the faulty construction of Baglihar Dam.