A redundant treaty
M.S. MENON
THE 46-YEAR-OLD history of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is the story of a tragedy that began with hope as demonstrated by past events and confirmed by the recent verdict of Raymond Lafitte, the World Bank appointed neutral expert for the Baglihar project.
The treaty, signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan with the aim of achieving the optimum development and utilisation of the Indus waters, has miserably failed not only in accomplishing the objectives but also in settling water disputes between the two all these years.
A perusal of the treaty would reveal that it is biased in favour of Pakistan, ignoring international rules on equitable distribution of waters. Against India's rightful share of more than 40 per cent of the Indus waters, we got only about 20 per cent in the allocation.
Further, using the loopholes in the treaty, Pakistan succeeded in stalling/delaying Indian projects, 30 in all, planned for the development of Jammu and Kashmir. At every stage, India agreed to the demands of Pakistan such as stopping the Tulbul project works and closing the sluices in the Salal project, only to maintain good neighbourly relations. This conciliatory approach emboldened Pakistan to allege IWT violations by India on the Baglihar hydroelectric project (450 MW).
India had given the project features of Baglihar to Pakistan in May, 1992 as per treaty provisions. Despite many meetings at Commissioner and Secretary levels, Pakistan continued to harp on treaty violations by India on project designs, etc. It was willing for negotiations, if India stopped the work, but this time India did not oblige. Our neighbour then approached the World Bank seeking the appointment of a neutral expert to look into the dispute. Accepting Pakistan's plea, the Bank appointed Raymond Lafitte.
After site visits, discussions with the parties concerned and studying the presentations made by them, the expert has now given his verdict.
Both India and Pakistan have claimed that their contentions have been upheld by the expert. But will the incendiary politics of the subcontinent further trigger more conflicts?
A perusal of the verdict would reveal that while provision of sluices and gated spillway has been accepted by the expert, India would have to modify the design to reduce the height of the dam, limit the pondage and raise the level of the power intake. India has therefore to incur additional costs to carry out these changes and get reduced peak power benefits and flood moderation advantages. By awarding such a decision the expert has overlooked the very basis of the treaty i.e. the maximum utilisation of Indus waters for mutual benefit.
Years of wrangling in the interpretation of the clauses has proved beyond doubt that the treaty has outlived its utility, to address the changing geopolitical situations and emerging norms of international laws. Hence India has to insist on a review of the treaty.
The rights and obligations of the parties to a treaty are well laid down in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969 which inter alia states that "a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context in the light of its object and purpose."
If Pakistan does not agree for a review, India must draw its attention to Article 62 of the Convention which permits terminating or withdrawing from a treaty due to a fundamental change of circumstances.
Pakistan has already cut out its strategy to delay the Indian projects, next in its agenda being the Kishanganga project (J&K). Hence we cannot and should not allow our development efforts in J&K to be sabotaged by Pakistan wrongly using the provisions of a redundant treaty.
(The writer is former Member-Secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage)
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
