Pakistan's Water Concerns

PAKISTAN’S WATER CONCERNS

PREFACE

Indus River and its tributaries are the life line of Pakistan. There are, however, Indo-Pakistan water concerns and water distribution complaints within Pakistan. The internal concerns were resolved through Water Accord 1991 amongst the provinces. Yet, at times, complaints crop up against Indus River System Authority (IRSA), which is responsible for ensuring equitable and agreed distribution of water among the provinces. Since water scarcity is growing, Pakistan needs to improve its internal water management to satisfy all areas. 

The distribution of water of the Indus River system between Pakistan and India was settled through the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960. Ever since India has been building or planning big and small hydropower projects and reservoirs, numbering as many as 671, on the principal rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab – that were allotted to Pakistan under the IWT.  For instance, there is the Kishenganga dam, the Tulbul dam (Wullar barrage) and the Uri-II hydroelectric plant on River Jhelum; Baglihar, Salal and Bursar dams on River Chenab; and Kargil dam, Nimmo Bazgo hydroelectric project on River Indus and Chutak hydroelectric plant on a tributary of Indus. These can cause major water shortages in Pakistan in times to come.  Also, these can be used to hold back water in days of scarcity or flood the country during excess flows. The natural flow of water is essential for Pakistan’s agricultural economy and a willful obstruction thereof has a potential for serious conflict between the two states. The IWT does not allow India to obstruct the flow of the run of river by storing or diverting the water. 

There is a security dimension as well. For instance, the Chenab canal network in Pakistan is the first-line of defence against India’s conventional attack. If these canals are dried up, they would afford easier passage for an infantry-armour assault, adversely affecting the defence of the country. 

For these reasons, Pakistan should be taken into confidence when such projects are being planned to ensure that they do not violate the IWT. There is no alternative but to settle mutual concerns through dialogue and consultation with a neighbour. The point to ponder is: 

If Pakistan and India had normal trustful relations, there would be a mutually-verified monitoring process which would assure that there is no change in the flows going to Pakistan. In an even more ideal world, India could increase low-flows during the 

1 I.A. Pansohta, “Threat ofWater Wars”, Nation (Islamabad), April, 2010. 

critical planting season, with significant benefit to Pakistani farmers and with very small impacts on power generation in India.2 

The IPRI Factfile includes selected articles from national and international media appearing during July 31, 2009 — October 11, 2010.    John Briscoe “War or Peace on the Indus”, News International (Islamabad), April 3, 2010; Frontier Post (Peshawar), April; 18, 2010. 

PART I INDO-PAK WATER ISSUES

WATER DISPUTES BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN-APOTENTIAL CASUS BELLI

Introduction
Concern is growing in Pakistan that India is pursuing policies in an attempt to strangulate Pakistan by exercising control over the water flow of Pakistan's rivers. The concern is most related to Pakistan’s agricultural sector, which would be greatly affected by the building of dams and by the external control of the waters of several rivers that flow into Pakistan.  The issue has a layered complexity, as three of the rivers flow into Pakistan through the Indian portion of Jammu & Kashmir, the territory over which the two countries have waged multiple wars.
Pakistani columnists, religious leaders, and policymakers are increasingly articulating their concern over the water dispute in terms of a traditional rivalry against India and in terms of anti-Israel sentiment that has been fostered by the country's establishment over the years. In one such recent case, Ayaz Amir, a renowned Pakistani columnist, warned: "Insisting on our water rights with regard to India must be one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy. The disputes of the future will be about water."  Hamid Gul, former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), charged: "India has stopped our water."  Pakistan's Indus Basin Water Council (IBWC), a pressure group that appears deceivingly authoritative as an organization whose central purpose is to address Pakistani water concerns, currently maintains near hegemony over the public debate of the issue. IBWC Chairman Zahoorul Hassan Dahir claimed that "India, working in conjunction with the Jewish lobby" is using most of the river waters, causing a shortage of food, water and electricity in Pakistan.
The Pakistani concern involves six rivers that flow into Pakistan through northern India, including the disputed state of Jammu & Kashmir and the state of Punjab, both of which have been ideologically divided between India and Pakistan since 1947. After the creation of Pakistan in 1947, disagreements began to arise over sharing of river waters, leading to the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, an attempt at a resolution brokered by the World Bank. Though the treaty is perhaps the most enduring pact between the two nuclear powers, it is coming under increasing strain.
Understanding the Indus River System
The Indus Water Treaty sets out the legal framework for the sharing of the waters of six rivers: the Indus River and its five tributaries. All six rivers - Indus, Chenab, Jhelum, Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi - flow through northern India into Pakistan. Under the pact, the waters of three rivers - the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum, which pass through Jammu & Kashmir - are to be used by Pakistan, while India has rights to the waters of the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi before these three enter Pakistani territory. The Chenab is the key tributary, as it carries the waters of the rest four rivers into the Indus.
The complicated origins of the Indus river system plays a key role in the water debates, as the rivers originate in and pass through a number of countries. According to the Indus Water Treaty, the following three rivers are for use by Pakistan:
The Indus River: originates in Chinese-controlled Tibet and flows through Jammu & Kashmir.
The Chenab: originates in India’s Himachal Pradesh state, travels through Jammu & Kashmir.
The Jhelum: rises in Jammu & Kashmir and flows into Pakistan, finally joining Chenab.
The Treaty affords India use of the following three rivers:
The Sutlej: originates in Tibet, flows through Himachal Pradesh and Punjab before joining the Chenab.
The Beas and the Ravi: originate in Himachal Pradesh state and flow into Pakistan, emptying into the Chenab.
Taking into account the flow of the rivers, the importance of the Chenab and the Indus becomes clear. The Chenab combines the waters of four rivers, the Jhelum, the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi, to form a single water system which then joins the Indus in Pakistan. The Indus River is considered to be the lifeline of Pakistani economy and livestock.
Pakistani Concern and Baglihar Dam
Pakistani concern regarding the water from the rivers started in the 1990s after India began constructing a hydroelectric power project on the Chenab River in the Doda district of Jammu & Kashmir. Since the Chenab is the key tributary of the Indus, Pakistani policymakers, religious and political parties, and political commentators feared that India could exert control over the waters. Such control could be used to injure the Pakistani economy and livestock, or could be used to cause floods in Pakistan by the release of water during times of war. Discussions of Pakistan's concerns are most often centralized around the Baglihar dam, though it is only one of the several water projects being developed by India in its part of Jammu & Kashmir.  
The first phase of the Baglihar dam, a 450-MW hydroelectric power project initiated in the 1990s, was completed on October 10, 2008. Inaugurating the project, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh noted: "It is a matter of satisfaction that the reconstruction program... [entailing] 67 projects is well under way with 19 projects completed, one of which is the Baglihar project that I inaugurated today." The fact that the Baglihar dam is one of 67 development projects underway in Jammu & Kashmir raises further concerns among many Pakistanis who believe that Kashmir, having a Muslim majority, rightfully belongs to the Islamic state of Pakistan. The extensive building of infrastructure by India is therefore a cause of further Pakistani displeasure and contention.
The discussion of water easily ignites popular passion because Pakistan is increasingly confronted by an impending water crisis. In early 2009, it was estimated that Pakistan is on the brink of a water disaster, as the availability of water in Pakistan has been declining over the past few decades, from 5,000 cubic meters per capita 60 years ago to 1,200 cubic meters per capita in 2009. By 2020, the availability of water is estimated to fall to about 800 cubic meters per capita. M. Yusuf Sarwar, a member of the Indus Basin Water Council, has warned that the lessening flow of water in rivers and shortage of water generally could cause Pakistan to be declared a disaster-affected nation by 2013. Dr. Muhammad Yar Khawar, a scientist at the University of Sindh, released research last year based on sample surveys that warns that less than 20 percent of below-surface water in the Sindh province, previously thought to be a viable water source, is acceptable for drinking.
Amidst this shortage of water, Pakistan is also confronted with a number of internal factors that amount to further strain. One columnist warned that with Pakistan's population set to jump to 250 million in just a few years' time, a shortage of water, along with that of oil, sugar, and wheat, will become a major problem.  Pakistan is also estimated to be losing 13 million cusecs [approximately 368,119 cubic meters/second] of water every year from its rivers into the sea, as it does not have enough reservoirs or dams to store water. Further tensions arise from allegations of inequitable distribution of water between various Pakistani provinces. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA), which allocates water to provinces, averted a major political controversy between provinces in June 2009 by declaring that there would be no cuts in their water supply.
While Pakistan's domestic behaviour in terms of water usage is partly responsible for the depletion of the water table, the construction of Baglihar dam by India has multiplied Pakistani concerns. Pakistani writers warn that the dam will deprive Pakistan of 321,000 acres’ feet of water during the agricultural season, greatly affecting wheat production in the Punjab province and leading to crop failures. There are some warnings that the dam will adversely affect 13 million acres of irrigated land around the Chenab and Ravi rivers, forcing Pakistani farmers to change crops, and in the face of starvation, deepening Pakistan’s dependence on food imports and burdening the country's national exchequer. In an editorial published in June 2009, Pakistan's mass-circulation Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jang said India "is nursing an unpious dream of turning the entirety of Pakistan into a desert."
Pakistan-Indian Talks
Under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, India is not permitted to build dams for the purpose of water storage on the Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum rivers, but it is allowed to make limited use of their waters, including developing run-of-the¬river hydroelectric power projects.  India is required to provide Pakistan with the technical details of any water project it wants to develop on these rivers before building begins. Pakistan has formally raised objections on the technical specifications of the Baglihar dam, including design, size, gated spillways, and water capacity. Over the past decade, India and Pakistan held a series of talks on the issue of the Baglihar dam but could not resolve the matter within the framework of the 1960 treaty.
In 2003, Pakistan formally served a final notice to the Indian government, urging it to resolve the Baglihar issue by December 31, 2003, a process that failed to yield results. In 2005, Pakistan approached the World Bank for mediation. The World Bank noted that it was "not a guarantor of the treaty," but had the authority to appoint a neutral expert. In 2007, the appointed neutral expert Professor Raymond Lafitte of Switzerland delivered a verdict rejecting most of the Pakistani objections. However, Professor Lafitte did require India to make some minor changes, including reducing the dam's height by 1.5m.  Significantly, Professor Lafitte's judgment classified Pakistani objections as "differences" and not a serious "dispute," which could have paved the way for the issue to be taken to a Court of Arbitration as envisaged in the treaty.
To this day, Pakistan remains dissatisfied over the Lafitte verdict. Though India has facilitated visits by Pakistani officials to the dam site and Indian delegations have visited Pakistan to examine Pakistani claims of a water shortage in the Chenab river, the countries remain at an impasse. Bilateral talks between the two countries are now increasingly focused on water disputes. Pakistan has accused India several times of completely stopping Pakistan's water from the Chenab River. In March 2008, Hafiz Zahoorul Hassan Dahir, the IBWC chairman, charged that India "completely shut down the Chenab river from the 1st to the 26th of January 2008, with not even a drop of water moving."  India was also accused of curtailing the water supply from the Chenab River during September-October, 2008. Due to a precedent set in the 1978 case of the Salal dam construction by India in Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan has requested the payment of compensation for any water shortfall. In June 2009, the Pakistani government declared that India had rejected its demand for monetary compensation for the loss of water from the Chenab River. Pakistan alleged that the waters of the Chenab had been stopped by India during August 2008; however India refuted these claims, citing unreliable Pakistani statistics regarding water stoppage and loss.  In an editorial, the Urdu-language Pakistani newspaper Roznama Express noted: "If India continues to build dams on our rivers and stop our water, then the day is not far when our lands will become barren and this nation, that has a spectacular history of agricultural production, will be forced to import food."  The daily observed that during a meeting with President Asif Zardari, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assured the President that he was looking into the matter, but no action was taken. In October 2008, President Zardari took "serious notice" of the issue and warned of "damage to bilateral relations" if Pakistani concerns were not addressed. A few days before President Zardari’s statement, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh inaugurated the Baglihar dam project, stating that "Pakistan's concerns about the project had been addressed."
On June 6, 2009, two years after the Lafitte verdict, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi accused India of violating the Indus Water Treaty. Qureshi further warned that any failure to resolve the water disputes "could lead to conflict in the region." Sentiment is now emerging in Pakistan that the 1960 Indus Water Treaty has proven to function to the sole advantage of India. Ayub Mayo, the president of the farmers' lobby group Pakistan Muttahida Kisan Mahaz, declared that the 1960 pact is simply "a conspiracy to deprive Pakistan of its due share of water." While the talks between the two nations regarding water-related issues are continuing into the second half of 2009, public debate in Pakistan on the subject continues to be vigorous and sentimental, raising complicated concerns of national security, traditional rivalry with India, as well as historical anti-Semitism.
The Perceived Threat
During the past two years, the debate in Pakistan about the Indian water projects in Jammu & Kashmir has gained a bitter momentum, as Pakistani leaders have begun to describe India as their eternal enemy and accuse India of trying to suffocate the Pakistani economy. Speeches by leaders often carry an element of anti-Semitism, blaming India for acting under an international conspiracy led by Israel, the U.S. and India against the Islamic state of Pakistan.
In early 2008, an editorial in the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Ausaf accused India of planning a "Water Bomb" strategy to strangle Pakistan economically. The article quoted the officials of the IBWC pressure group as saying that India wants to achieve through a "water bomb" what it could not achieve through the three wars waged over the past six decades. Noting that India is planning "50 dams to raid the waters of the rivers" flowing into Pakistan, the IBWC warned: "If this is not foiled, Pakistan will face the worst famine and economic disaster."
In April 2008, IBWC Chairman Hafiz Zahoorul Hassan Dahir stated that India plans to construct 10 more dams on rivers streaming into Pakistan in addition to the ongoing construction of 52 new dams. "We believe that if India succeeded in constructing the proposed dams," Dahir disclosed, "Pakistan would join the list of the countries facing a severe water crisis. If we are to save Pakistan, we have to protect our waters and review our policies in Kashmir."
One month later, Dahir accused India of using 80 percent of the water of the Chenab and Jhelum rivers and 60 percent of the water of the Indus, stating: "We can do nothing about what India is doing but we are concerned about the role of our government. If continued, this distribution of water would not only affect our energy but also agricultural production. We wonder as to why we are leading toward collective suicide." In May 2009, Dahir described "India's water terrorism as a bigger threat than Talibani terrorism," and then added: "The day is not far when circumstances like those in Somalia, Ethiopia and Chad will emerge inside Pakistan... Between India and Pakistan, there is an extremely dreadful dispute. In an aggressive manner, India has readied a weapon for use against Pakistan that is more dangerous and destructive than an atomic bomb." Dahir warned that by 2012, India will acquire the capability to completely stop the waters of the Jhelum and the Chenab.
One month after the inauguration of first phase of the Baglihar project by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner and liaison between the countries within the framework of the 1960 treaty, warned that India plans to make Pakistan barren by 2014 by stopping its water. At a seminar in Lahore, Shah contended that India is permitted to generate electricity from the waters of the rivers but not to stop Pakistan's water as it has on several occasions, most notably from August 19 to September 5, 2008, a suspension presumably necessary to fill up the Baglihar dam. Pakistani leaders estimate that during the 36 day hiatus from September-October 2008, India deprived Pakistan of more than 1.2 million cusecs of water.
Defense Security Concerns
Within a week of the dam's October 2008 inauguration, Major General Athar Abbas, a spokesman for the Pakistan Army, expressed concern over the Baglihar dam, describing it as a "defense security concern."  Abbas stated that a number of canals, drains and artificial distributaries used for irrigation purposes are crucial during times of war. The strategic importance of the Indian water projects in Kashmir is so significant that officials from the Pakistani Army headquarters attended a government meeting on the issue in February 2009 "to discuss the impact of the said dams on Pakistan's water and defense interests... The armed forces became alarmed when they learned the projects could wreak havoc... if the said dams were to collapse or malfunction."
Retired General Zulfiqar Ali, former chairman of Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority expressed that by building dams on rivers in Kashmir, India has achieved military, economic and political supremacy vis-a¬vis Pakistan. In an editorial, the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Khabrain accused India of using water as a weapon, proclaiming: "In order to establish its hegemony over the region [of South Asia], India is even using water as a weapon." Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad, a senior Pakistani politician and former Minister of Railways, has warned that Pakistan and India may go to war on the issue of water, adding: "India wants to make Pakistan a Somalia by stopping its water." Addressing a seminar in late-2008, Javed Iqbal, an eminent retired justice in Pakistan, said, "the government of Pakistan should pressure the Indian government to resolve this issue; and if it does not agree, then a threat be issued that we are ready for a war."
A number of Pakistani commentators warned that the water issues may incite nuclear war between the two countries. At the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a convener of the Pakistani chapter of the Kashmiri secessionist organizations’ alliance, Syed Yousaf Naseem stated that Pakistan is facing a water crisis and that the Indian efforts to effect cuts in its water share from the rivers flowing into Pakistan could compel Pakistan to use unconventional weapons against India. Naseem added that: "The Kashmir issue is cardinal to Pakistan-India relations. Unless this issue is resolved, the Damocles' sword of a nuclear clash will remain hanging over the region. Kashmir is very important for Pakistan and a delay in the resolution of this issue will jeopardize the peace of the region."
The warning of nuclear war between the two neighbors has been reiterated by multiple sources, including veteran Pakistani editor Majeed Nizami.  Even former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, a center-right politician who was responsible for conducting the 1998 nuclear tests, warned in May 2009 that "the issues of water and Kashmir must be resolved as early as possible so that the clouds of war between Pakistan and India can be eliminated forever."  A similar linking between water issues and Kashmiri emancipation has been articulated by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of jihadist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba. In an address to a group of farmers in Lahore last year, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed warned that the "water problem cannot be resolved without liberating Kashmir from India."  Syed Salahuddin, the chairman of the Muttahida Jihad Council, a network bringing together nearly two dozen Pakistan-based militant organizations, warned in October 2008 that jihad against India in Jammu & Kashmir will continue until the territory is liberated. …
The International Conspiracy
In April 2009, former member of Pakistani parliament and Emir of Jamaat-e-Islami in the Sindh province Maulana Asadullah Bhutto said: "India is Pakistan’s eternal enemy and from day one until now has been engaged in destroying Pakistan. It first occupied Kashmir through a conspiracy, thereafter cut off our eastern arm [creating Bangladesh] and for the past several years now has been stealing Pakistan’s share of water... India is using Pakistan’s water and is engaged in efforts to make our lands barren."
The Pakistan-India water dispute was discussed by the Majlis-e-Shura (executive council) of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan in May 2009. In a resolution adopted at the end of the meeting, the Jamaat-e-Islami condemned "water aggression" by India and described it as "a dreadful international conspiracy to make Pakistan face a situation like [the drought-stuck] Ethiopia by making Pakistan’s fertile lands barren." …
Conclusion
Although bitter feelings and heated public debates are likely to persist in the years ahead, the people and leadership of Pakistan generally accept that there is nothing that Pakistan can do, especially in light of the judgment delivered in February 2007 by the World Bank-appointed neutral expert Professor Raymond Lafitte. In an editorial, the Pakistani daily The News observed: "The only way to avoid problems arising is for the 1960 accord to be respected. India has, on more than one occasion, attempted to violate its spirit if not its letter, by seeking loopholes and technical flaws that can be used to its advantage. But in all this, there is also another message. The interests of the two countries are so closely linked, that they can be protected only by establishing closer ties. A failure to do so will bring only more episodes of discord, over river water, over dams, over toxic dumping in drains and over illegal border crossings...."
In late June 2009, Pakistani Water and Power Minister Raja Parvez Ashraf observed that India does have a right to build dams, but that it cannot stop the flow of water into Pakistan in order to fill the dams. In fact, Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner, gave a rare candid interview in April 2008, stating that the Indian water projects currently undertaken do not contravene the provisions of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty. Noting that India can construct dams within the technical specifications outlined in the treaty, Shah acknowledged: "In compliance with the Indus Water Treaty, India has so far not constructed any storage dam on the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum rivers. The hydroelectric projects India is developing are on the run-of-the-river waters of  these rivers,  projects  which India is permitted  to pursue according to the treaty."
WATER SCARCITY AND RIPARIAN RIGHTS
Water shortage in the country has assumed alarming proportions following reduced flows in the western rivers from their sources in Indian-held Kashmir and, as a corollary, it is aggravating tension over sharing of available water among the provinces.
Last week, an Indian delegation was in Pakistan for a routine inspection of water-related sites and Pakistan’s Indus Water commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah held talks with its members on the issue of low flows on the sidelines because no meeting was scheduled between the two sides during the inspection visit.
Later, a Pakistan team of inspectors was scheduled to visit water-related projects in Indian Kashmir.
India is currently constructing three hydropower projects on River Indus. These include Chutak Dam with 59- meter height, Nimoo Bazgo with 57-metre height and Dumkhar of 42-meter height. These projects are at initial or middle stages of construction. Pakistan has repeatedly sought river flow data from India to ascertain the actual flow of western rivers at their source but the latter had cold-shouldered the request. Under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty India is bound to share the data with Pakistan. Under the treaty it cannot interfere with the flow of western rivers before they enter Pakistan but it does so blatantly.
Other violations are: India is irrigating about 800,000 acres in Chenab area which is not permissible; it has built five more canals in the past 10 years to increase the irrigated area in the region. Pakistan has also asked India to provide details of its agricultural acreage, crops and other projects in Kashmir to enable it to make plans in advance.
Low inflows are in evidence in the Rivers Chenab and Jhelum for the past several months. In particular, the flow of the Chenab has become very low after the construction of Baglihar Hydropower project. In recent months, flows of the River Jhelum have also not been consistent.
On January 20, the water flow in Chenab was found to have fallen to about 6,000 from 10,000 cusecs, the average flow during the recent years, mainly because of on-going construction of over a dozen hydropower projects upstream, unauthorised use of water by farmers in Jammu, poor rainfall because of El Nino effect and diversion of river waters, according to a report appearing in this newspaper. This is about 40 per cent decline.
But three leaders of farmers communities in Punjab and Sindh told the media in Lahore on February 10 that the water flow in Chenab River suddenly jumped up to 15,000 cusecs during the stay of Indian water delegation in Pakistan to give an impression to our water ministry and Indus water commissioner that India was not tampering with the flow. It proved, they said, that India was stealing Pakistan’s share of river waters.
They want Pakistan to seek revision of the 1991 river water distribution agreement with India to get more water from Jhelum, Chenab and Indus rivers.
Current estimates of 104MAF flow in Indus, Jhelum and Chenab rivers during dry weather and 114MAF in the event of rainfall were not realistic and required to be revised.
Although, Pakistan has asked India to proportionately reduce its water use if and when there is an abnormal decline in river water, the latter often ignores it. Many observers are of the view that the low flow in Pakistan’s rivers has little to do with lack of rains. It is primarily because India is controlling the water flow of western rivers, namely, the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum which were given to Pakistan under the Indus treaty and India has nothing to do with them. Pakistan complained to the World Bank (WB) regarding hydro-power projects initiated by India but a neutral expert appointed by the WB rejected most of the objections, especially with regard to the Baglihar Dam on Chenab River.
It only asked India to make some changes in the dam’s height. After Baglihar, it is the Kishanganga project which is creating the same problem. Pakistan tried to resolve the issue at commissioner level but failed. Syed Jamaat Ali Shah intends to raise the issue with a third party. Islamabad fears that the Kishanganga hydro-power project, being constructed on Ganges River to generate 330MW, which on entry into Pakistan becomes Neelum River, will reduce water levels downstream in the plains of Punjab, thus threaten irrigation and power projects. The Kishanganga dam is located in the remote area of Gurez in the Himalayas, 123km from Srinagar.
The river water is being diverted, through a long tunnel, into the Wullar lake. This will change the course of the Neelum River by about 200 kilometres and will join the Jhelum River through Wullar lake in the Baramulla district. As a consequence of this diversion, Pakistan’s Neelum valley is likely to dry up and become a desert.
A visiting scholar, Arshad H. Abbasi, while writing on this project in this newspaper, wonders why this has not yet been addressed by the ministry of water and power. Most probably Pakistan is unaware of the fact that India had already diverted the Ganges river at Farrakka by building a barrage, which has brought environmental and economic disaster to Bangladesh.
According to him, the diversion of Ganges waters was an engineering blunder in the history of water engineering. Arsenic contamination in Bangladesh began after the dam’s construction and diversion of the water in 1975. The lowering of the water table resulted in exposure to air in the zone of aeration. This exposure resulted in the oxidation of arsenic minerals previously present below the water table.
The diversion of the Neelum river is not only a violation of the Indus Water Treaty signed in 1960 but also of the Helsinki Rule signed in 1966 regarding water rights pertaining to international rivers.
According to this law, all basin states of an international river have the right to access an equitable and reasonable share of the water flow.
Meanwhile, the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) is making hectic efforts to sort out differences between Sindh and Punjab. There exists a serious feud over how much water should go to Sindh and Punjab. The problem is that water available for the current Rabi crop is already reduced by 34 per cent because of low flow.
An Irsa spokesman describes the situation as persistently drought-like because of continuing water shortage. Meanwhile, water level at Mangla Dam dropped last week below 0.3 MAF, which means that Sindh and Balochistan could get 0.1 MAF water.
The continuing drought in the country has not only made the Rabi crops target doubtful, it is also likely to badly affect the Kharif crop output as the weather forecast says that the El-Nino phenomenon, which reduced Pakistan’s monsoon rainfall by about 30 per cent last year is likely to continue till the next summer. This is an alarming situation because, being an agrarian economy, Pakistan can face a huge food deficit. Sindh wants Punjab to release additional water for it because, as it claims, Punjab had promised to give it “surplus water” after the reopening of canals after January 31.

THE INDUS WATER TREATY-ITS DYNAMICS AND REVERBERATIONS
As late as February 13 this year, many members of Pakistan National Assembly expressed great concern over the alleged violation of the Indus Water treaty by India in building dams across rivers meant for Pakistan and warned of a possible war between the two countries over this issue.
These threats of war are nothing new to India. Even before the treaty of 1960, late Suhrawardy as Prime Minister of Pakistan threatened that Pakistan will go to war on the sharing of waters of the Indus. These threats have been repeated periodically and so regularly by people at the political, military, bureaucratic and technical levels that these threats have lost their meaning now. At one point, one of the influential editors of the Urdu press Majeed Nizami of Pakistan went one step further and threatened that Pakistan will have to go for a nuclear war over the river waters issue.
It should be conceded that the Indus Water Treaty has survived despite wars, near wars, acts of terrorism and other conflicts that have bedevilled the relations between India and Pakistan. This has been, as much acknowledged by many of the saner voices from Pakistan too.  
In April 2008, Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner, Jamaat Ali Shah in a frank interview conceded that the water projects undertaken by India do not contravene the provisions of the Indus water treaty of 1960. He said that “in compliance with IWT, India has not so far constructed any storage dam on the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum rivers (rivers allotted to Pakistan for full use). The Hydro electric projects India is developing are the run of the river waters, projects which India is permitted to pursue according to the treaty.”
Yet many in Pakistan at very senior levels have been whipping up frenzy among the people of Pakistan that “India is stealing the waters of Pakistan”.
Since 2004-2005 when the opposition to Bagilhar Project came out into the open, there has been a continuous attempt on the part of Pakistan to push India to renegotiate the Indus Water treaty.
This would mean going back to sharing of waters during the lean season and other extraneous factors and also to ignore the enormous changes that have taken place on both sides of the border in the last fifty years. This would also mean rewarding Pakistan for its failure to manage its scarce and life giving waters to optimum use.
Unfortunately, some Indian scholars without understanding the past history of negotiations with Pakistan have supported the idea. One of the senior analysts of India is said to have opined that “in negotiating an Indus Water Treaty 2, would be a huge Confidence Building Measure as it would engage both countries in a regional economic integration process.” A pious hope but an unrealistic one.
The Indus Water Treaty is unique in one respect. Unlike many of the international agreements which are based on the equitable distribution of waters of the rivers along with other conditions, the Indus Water Treaty is based on the distribution of the rivers and not the waters.
This unique division of rivers rather than the waters has eliminated the very hassles and conflict that would have followed had equitable distribution of water been based on current usage, historical use, past and potential use etc. People who advocate a revision of the treaty including some influential ones in India should realise the trap that India will be getting into.  
Briefly, the Indus Water treaty, having discarded the joint development plan for developing the Indus Basin as suggested by some international bodies, allotted the three western rivers of the Indus basin- the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum to Pakistan and the three eastern rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi to India. The Treaty in its Annexures acknowledged certain rights and privileges for agricultural use of Pakistan drawing water from eastern rivers and similarly India drawing water for similar reasons from the three western rivers.
The treaty permitted India to draw water from the western rivers for irrigation up to 642,000 acres that is in addition to another entitlement to irrigate 701,000 acres. India has so far not made full use of its rights to draw this quantity of water from the western rivers. These allocations were made based on the water flows and usage as existed on April 1960.
While India is not permitted to build dams for water storage purposes (for consumptive uses) on the western rivers passing through India, it is allowed to make limited use of waters including run of the river hydroelectric power projects. The Bagilhar project, the Kishenganga project as well as Tulbull (Wular) that come in this category are all being opposed by Pakistan on the narrow definition as to what it means by storage.
Pakistan disputed the Indian contention that Bagilhar project was a run of the river project and that the storage called pondage was necessary to meet the fluctuations in the discharge of the turbines and claimed that the water will ultimately go to Pakistan. Since talks over a long period remained unsuccessful, the World Bank intervened though it made it clear that it was not a guarantor of the treaty.
A neutral expert was appointed by the World Bank. The neutral expert Professor Lafitte of Switzerland while delivering the verdict, rejected most of Pakistan’s objections but did call for minor design changes including the reduction of the dam’s height by 1.5 metres. The expert did not object to the right of India to construct dams for storage purposes purely for technical reasons for the efficiency of the turbines and did not even call the project as a dispute between the two countries but as “differences.”
The Tulbul project similarly envisages a barrage to be built at the mouth of Wular lake to increase the flow of water in the Jhelum during the dry season to make it navigable. The other disputed project, is the dam across Kishenganga River to Wular lake for generation of hydro electric power. The contention of India has been that in both cases the waters will ultimately go to Pakistan.
In the case of Kishenganga Project, Pakistan also has objected to the storage of water on the Neelum river on the principle of “prior appropriation” though the project on the Pakistan side the Neelum - Jhelum power plant downstream had not then started.
In all the projects objected to, Pakistan has brought in a new dimension to the dispute on security and strategic considerations which are strictly outside the ambit of the Indus treaty. The reasoning goes thus - by regulating the waters of the Chenab and the Jhelum, India has the capability in times of war to regulate the flow of waters to its strategic advantage.
There is no doubt that Pakistan will be facing increasing water shortages in the days to come leading to prolonged drought in many of its regions. The reasons are many but some of these are Pakistan’s own doing. The availability of water even now has reached critical proportions.
1 Global warming over a period of time has depleted the flow of water in the Indus (the major supplier) which depends mostly on glacial runoffs.
2 As in other Himalayan regions like the Kosi in Nepal, the rivers carry very heavy sediments that result in silting the dams and barrages thus reducing the availability of water for cultivation. Proper and periodic maintenance have ben lacking.
3 The canals that feed the irrigated lands are not lined resulting in seepage and loss of water.
4 There is mismanagement in use of water by using antiquated techniques and heavy cropping of water intensive varieties of farm products. Optimum crop rotations have not been done extensively as it should have been done to save water.
5 No serious effort has been made to improve the storage for intensive seasons like Kharif.
6 Dwindling water flow has also been affecting power generation.
7 The discharge of fresh water into the Arabian sea has dwindled considerably (less than 10 MAF) which has resulted in the sea water  pushing further into the estuaries and beyond, making water in those areas unfit for cultivation.

Just as in India, there are many water disputes among the four provinces in Pakistan, but there, it is one - Punjab against the other three and Punjab happens to be the upper riparian.
There is a larger political dimension to the whole problem of the river water distribution between Pakistan and India.  To Pakistan the Kashmir issue is irrevocably linked to the Indus water treaty as the headwaters of all the rivers of Pakistan and meant for Pakistan flow through Kashmir and India happens to be the upper riparian state. The fear exists that India could manipulate the waters to starve Pakistan.
From the Indian point of view, Pakistan need not fear if the Indus Water treaty is implemented both in letter and spirit.  What is needed is a constructive approach from Pakistan and India should also respond constructively on a crisis that is reaching a very critical stage in Pakistan.  Some analysts feel that the “waters issue” may take precedence over Kashmir.
If one were to interpret the spirit of the Indus Water treaty and not the letter, there has to be some give and take from both sides. It needs a conducive environment and mutual trust that are scarce commodities in the relations between India and Pakistan.    
Dr. S. Chandrasekharan, South Asia Analysis Group, Paper no. 3676, February 19, 2010, http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/\papers37\paper3676.html
WATER WAR WITH INDIA?
The tension relating to water resources held by India has heated up again and Pakistan has complained that India is holding back the waters of rivers flowing from Indian-administered Kashmir.
Some analysts have termed this as a clear violation of the Indus Water Treaty. In a sense, the availability of less water from the rivers is a security issue for Pakistan as it could put the country's very survival at stake. The media in Pakistan and the general public, too, appear convinced that India is withholding the waters in violation of the Indus Water Treaty. On the other hand, the Indian perception is that Pakistan is assuming that India had restricted the flow, and that this assumption was incorrect as the water level was low the previous year as well.
From a legal point of view, this argument is interesting as it actually raises the issue of jurisdiction and the scope of the Indus Water Treaty itself. The Indus Water Treaty does not deal directly with the issue of water scarcity. In fact, when the treaty (signed in 1960) was being negotiated, a future possibility of water scarcity was not a priority or a leading concern for the negotiators.
Hence, we find that there is no provision per se that provides a mechanism to both the countries if climate-based water scarcity occurs. The critical provisions of the Indus Water Treaty simply say that India and Pakistan were obliged to "let flow" the river waters without interfering.
Hence any obstruction by India would be seen as an outright breach of the treaty by Pakistan.
Despite speculations by the Pakistani side there is no specific evidence brought forth so far that India is actually obstructing the flow or is diverting the waters. The Indian argument remains that reservoirs such as the Wullar Barrage and others are built within the regulatory framework of the treaty itself. Pakistan, naturally, has a different view and in one case Pakistan was seeking third-party resolution through a neutral expert who did not support fully the Pakistani version.
If the Indian version is correct then the issue cannot be addressed within the framework of the Indus Water Treaty and, in that case, Pakistan is pursuing a remedy in the wrong direction.The question remains as to who determines whether the reduced amount of water flowing into the rivers of Pakistan from the Indian side is because of obstructions or on account of climatic water scarcity. For that both countries would need to agree on an independent and a separate framework or neutral experts' assessment. The determination by such a panel would make matters clearer for Pakistani and Indian policymakers who could then follow a bilateral remedial course of action.
The argument is also advanced that even if the water flowing into Pakistani rivers is less due to genuine climatic water scarcity, India cannot escape responsibility as a state to maintain and manage the water resources that it exercises control over. India's responsibility comes under the general framework of international law that calls on the upper riparian state to take the necessary measures to minimise water scarcity.
In Europe and elsewhere, water scarcity has promoted trans-boundary water cooperation instead of inciting war over this issue. The UN Convention on Uses of International Water Courses 1997 obliges states to conserve, manage and protect international water courses. Pakistan and India are not party to the said convention but the latter nevertheless offers a comprehensive framework for trans-boundary water cooperation.
Likewise, the 1992 Convention on Trans-Boundary Water Courses primarily meant for European countries offers another legislative model for India and Pakistan for bilateral cooperation on the issue of handling water scarcity. The 1997 convention is widely viewed as a codification of customary international law with regard to obligations for equitable and legal utilisation, the prevention of significant harm and prior notification of planned measures.
At the moment, India and Pakistan lack a legal medium or forum through which the Indian version of 'genuine water scarcity' could be scrutinised and if found to be correct handled and responded to properly through bilateral action.
If this issue is not handled technically without a legal mechanism, then it has the potential to further aggravate tensions between India and Pakistan as it will be clubbed with the Kashmir dispute. Further, a reduced water flow could be perceived as India's ploy to put additional pressure on Pakistan and, in that event, the response would be equally unmeasured and misdirected.
Finally, whether India is actually blocking the water or the decrease in water flow is due to scarcity and climatic change, needs objective and transparent determination by experts. This determination of the real reason should be agreed to beforehand through a bilateral agreement confined to fact-finding. If the finding is that the reduced flow of water is due to obstructions, then Pakistan could take action under the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty immediately.
On the other hand, if it is determined that there is genuine water scarcity then the issue is outside the jurisdiction of the Indus Water Treaty and needs to be sorted out by both states on a bilateral basis. India, in that case, should undertake its obligations under international law for proper water conservation and management and share the details with Pakistan through a mutually agreed mechanism.
This point may be considered in the India-Pakistan talks as an urgent item.
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Dawn (Islamabad), February 20, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/water-war-with-india-020
INTERVIEW -DISTRUST COMPLICATES INDIA-PAKISTANRIVER DISPUTES
Distrust between India and Pakistan and a "hawkish" Indian mindset were complicating efforts to resolve disputes over the water of shared rivers, Pakistan's top river water official said.
Some analysts fear that disputes over water between the old rivals could in future spark conflict as the neighbours compete for dwindling supplies of water from melting Himalayan glaciers.
The foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars since 1947, will meet in New Delhi on Thursday marking the resumption of official contacts which India broke off after militants attacked the Indian city of Mumbai in late 2008.
Pakistan wants to put the dispute over river waters at the top of the agenda along with the core dispute over the divided Kashmir region.
But Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said on Monday that Indian concerns about militant groups based in Pakistan would form the main focus of the talks with her Pakistani counterpart.
"There's mistrust and a lack of confidence," Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, the Indus Water commissioner of Pakistan, told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday.
"There has been reluctance to share information about the water situation in the rivers, which is sad," he said.
The use of the water flowing down rivers which rise in the Indian part of Kashmir and flow into the Indus river basin in Pakistan is governed by the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.
Under the accord, India has the use of water from three rivers in the east - the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi.
Pakistan was awarded use of the waters of the western rivers - the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum.
Diversionary Tactic
But Pakistan accuses India of violating the treaty by reducing the flow of water down the rivers it was awared use of.
In particular, Pakistan objects to two planned Indian projects, the Wullar barrage, as it is known in Pakistan, or the Tulbul navigation project, as India calls it, and the Kishan-Ganga hydroelectric and water-diversion project.
Shah said the barrage would reduce water flow in the Jhelum river. The water diversion planned in the Kishan-Ganga dam, on a tributary that flows into the Jhelum, would have a serious impact on the Pakistani side and it would seek international arbitration if the dispute could not be resolved bilaterally, he said.
Pakistan also objects to India's Baglihar hydro-power and water storage project on the Chenab river.
But water is also a divisive issue within Pakistan with the downstream southern provinces of Sindh and Baluchistan complaining that upstream provinces, in particular Punjab, take more than their fair share.
Indian denies any unfair diversion of Pakistan's water.
Some Indian analysts say Pakistani complaints are aimed at diverting attention within Pakistan from the internal water row.
Indian officials also say Pakistan is raising the issue to counter India's attempts to keep the focus of Thursday's talks on militancy.
"Raising the water issue appears to be a diversionary tactic," said an Indian official who declined to be identified.
But Shah played down analysts' fears of conflict over water.
"I don't think the water dispute would become a flash-point," he said. "We want India to get its rights but it should also fulfil its obligations."
If disputes were handled properly, according to a mechanism set out in the 1960 treaty, the exploitation of the water could be a factor for cooperation, he said.
"It could be a foundation for good relations between the two countries," he said.
Kamran Haider, Reuters, Feberury 24, 2010, http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-46434220100224
INDIA’S DAM ON CHENAB EXACERBATES WATER WARS
India’s Aqua Bombs: Draught & floods imposed on Pakistan: Indus Water Treaty violations - state terror.
Bharats (aka India) has been unable to resolve any of her boundary disputes with any of her neighbors. Bharats norhtern border is in a state of constant hot and cold war with China. Her disputes with Bangaldesh pre-date the country. Her issues with Nepal are never ending. The Bharati attempt to bifurcate Sri Lanka were recently defeated when the RAW agent was killed. China, Pakistan and Lanka cooperated to defeat the designs of Delhi.
Bharat also has water disputes with Bangladesh at the Furrakha Barrage which infringes on the rights of the lower reparian (technical term to designate those living on the receiving end of the water).
Bharat after illegally occupying Kashmir using a fake article of accession which it now claims is lost (as if it ever existed) has now built an illegal dam called Kishanganga dam on the Neelam river which eventually flows down to the Indus in Pakistan.
The Americans forced Field Marshall Ayub Khan to sign the Indus Water treaty. They had promised the construction of a dozen dams to alleviate the shortage of water (and electricity). Only the Mangla and Tarbeal [Tarbela] were built. The other dams got delayed due to a myriad of issues–too lengthy to get into. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYgRzwRwLBY&feature=player_embed ded Islamabad: With Pakistan still undecided when to formally seek intervention of the International Court of Arbitration against controversial construction of Kishanganga hydropower project by India in violation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, New Delhi has started preparations to build another big dam on River Chenab.
Documents available with Dawn suggest that the government of Indian-occupied Kashmir has invited bids for a ‘topographical survey of Bursar Dam (on Chenab) for acquisition of land and property’. New Delhi plans to begin construction by the end of the year.
Bursar Dam is considered as the biggest project among a host of others being built by India on two major rivers – Jhelum and Chenab – flowing through the state of Jammu & Kashmir into Pakistan and assigned to Islamabad under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. The proposed dam would not only violate the treaty, international environmental conventions and cause water scarcity in Pakistan but would also contribute towards melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Pakistan’s Permanent Indus Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah had repeatedly asked his Indian counterpart to provide details of the proposed water storage and hydropower projects, including Bursar dam. However, India has taken the stand that it was aware of its legal obligations and it would let Pakistan know about the project details and relevant data six months before construction activities as required under the bilateral treaty, he said, adding the Pakistan could do nothing more when such projects were in the planning and investigation stage.
Responding to a question about Kishanganga hydropower project, he said he had already requested the government to move quickly for constitution of an International Court of Arbitration to stop construction of the controversial project. Pakistan, he said, had already nominated two members for the court of arbitration and had asked to do the same. He said the procedure laid down in the waters treaty required the two nations to nominate two adjudicators each of their choice and then jointly nominate three members to complete the composition of a seven-member court of arbitration.
He said the procedure also required that in case of a disagreement over three adjudicators, the complainant nation should ask the World Bank to nominate these three members and start formal proceedings. Pakistan, he said, had even prepared the list of three joint adjudicators since India had not yet fulfilled its obligations to nominate its two members and three joint members of the court. “We have completed the entire process, it was only a matter of formal launching and only the government could do that,” he said, adding that perhaps Islamabad intended to wait for the upcoming secretary level talks before triggering the legal process.
He, however, believed that these issues were of technical nature and should be processed accordingly as provided under the treaty.
Informed sources said that India had not only started building three other dams namely Sawalkot, Pakal-Dul and Kirthai on Chenab River, it has also completed the detail project report of Bursar Dam site. The proposed dam would have 829 feet height, storage capacity of more than two million acres feet and power generation capacity of 1200MW. The height of Baglihar, Tarbela and Mangla Dam is 474, 485 and 453 feet, respectively.
Bursar Dam would be constructed near Hanzal Village (near Kishtwar) in Doda District of Jammu & Kashmir on the 133-kilometre-long Marusudar River, the main right bank tributary of the Chenab river. Its construction would be a serious violation of the treaty as its storage was much behind the permissible limits. More than 4900 acres of thick forest would be submerged and the whole population of Hanzal village would be displaced.
Arshad H. Abbasi, visiting research fellow of the SDPI, said the project area fell in Seismic Zone V and hence most vulnerable to earthquake. Two active geological faults lines — Himalayan thrust and the Kishtwar fault — were passing through the project area, he said, adding that the worst impact of dam would be on glaciers of Marusudar river basin. He said that deforestation, coupled with high altitude military activities, had already created 48 glacial lakes in the Marusudar river basin covering an area of 225.35 sq km and massive construction activities in basin would further aggravate the melting of glaciers.
He said the project was located in Kishtwar High Altitude National Park which was an environmentally-protected area. Spreading over an area of 400 kilometres, the park contained 15 mammal species including the musk deer and Himalayan black and brown bear and some rare birds for which an environmental impact assessment study was necessary.
Bharat has built over 60 dams in Indian Occupied Kashmir. It uses these dams to prevent the flow of water to Pakistan, or on occasion, it simply floods hundreds of villages. This is a direct violation of the Indus Water Treaty, the United State Resolutions and International Law on riparian rights. Delhi gets away with these acts of war. Terrorism has many faces. One face of state terrorism is murdering innocent farmers by starving them, or by flooding their fields.
Bharat claims that the Kishanganga dam is for the production of electricity only. This is a fake excuse and does not hold water (pun intended).
NEW DELHI (APP) – India claimed on Thursday that the stage of differences or disputes on controversial Kishenganga Dam had not arisen and the issue could be further discussed at Commission level.
Pakistan Daily (Islamabad), Feburay 24, 2010, http://www.daily.pk/india%E2%80%99s-dam-on-chenab-exacerbates-water¬wars-16685/
INDIA’S SILENT AGGRESSION
India maintains a huge military machine in Occupied Kashmir, much larger than the United States and its allies, put together, have in Iraq and Afghanistan. In there, its three-quarters of a million troops are perhaps out number any such expeditionary force stationed in an occupied or disputed area since the Second World War. On the face of it, the deployment is tasked to deal with freedom fighters, which of course is a daunting challenge, but more importantly, it is there to change the face of the Muslim-majority landscape called Kashmir; its main weapon being brutal use of force against unarmed civilian population. But where its work goes almost unnoticed is the security it provides to Indian engineers, who are planning and working day and night to build dams on rivers that take water to Pakistan. So furiously are they working and in such so-far inaccessible areas that of late, New Delhi is thinking of bringing these projects under the enhanced protection cover of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). All this work falls within the definition of an aqua war India is preparing to foist on Pakistan, courtesy a Chanakiya manoeuvre to ‘turn Pakistan into a desert’. Not that Pakistanis are not aware of Indian designs; there is plenty of information how India is trying to dam up rivers Jhelum, Chenab and Indus, whose waters under the Indus Water Treaty should reach Pakistan uninterrupted. According to reports, India is planning or building some three dozen big and small hydropower projects and reservoirs on the tributaries of these principal rivers, including quite a few mega-projects, keeping Pakistan completely un-informed or misinformed. One of these is Bursar Dam on River Chenab, for which New Delhi has invited bids for a ‘topographical survey’. Others in different stages of planning/construction include Kishenganga on River Neelam, Uri Todium on River Pooch, which is tributary for River Jhelum and; the Baglihar, Dul Husti and Salal dams on River Chenab. On River Indus, the Indian engineers are working to steal water at Kargil and from its 12 distributaries. Not content with depriving Pakistan of its waters from Kashmir, the Indians have recently stepped up their aid-assisted work in Afghanistan on two dams on River Kabul, which is a tributary of River Indus. Yes, Pakistanis know all this - and much more, given the fact that the growing water shortages are causing problems that have begun negatively impacting provincial harmony, power generation and industrial production. As Irsa stood bitterly divided over the opening of the Chashma-Jhelum and Taunsa-Panjnad link canals last week, the prime minister had to call an urgent meeting of the four chief ministers. But where the official state or quality of being pusillanimous is detected in raising the issue of India blocking Pakistani rivers at the concerned international forums. Recent reports suggest that Pakistan is ‘still undecided’ when to formally seek intervention of the International Court of Arbitration against the controversial construction of Kishenganga project by India, in violation of Indus Water Treaty. Of course, the Indus Water Treaty - under which Pakistan lost waters of its three eastern rivers - Ravi, Sutlej and Beas - hoping its monopoly of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab waters would remain uncontested by India - was badly negotiated and more than required was surrendered. But that Pakistan should not even get its allocated share under the treaty, is all the more unacceptable.
We hope and expect that at the forthcoming talks in New Delhi, later this week, Pakistani officials would raise the issue of dams India is building or planning to build in the Occupied Kashmir in violation of Indus Water Treaty. Under international laws, India cannot carry out any major upstream alterations in a river system, and even minor changes have to be discussed and made only with the formal consent of downstream riparians. If allowed to go unchecked, what India is doing has the dangerous potential to stop Himalayan snowmelt reaching Pakistan in the next few years. It is a kind of silent strategic warfare India is waging against Pakistan, by creating conditions of perennial drought for a fundamentally agrarian economy that Pakistan is. It would be resisted resolutely and fought back valiantly; if world’s future wars would be fought over water and not oil, the first of these may well be in South Asia where India seeks to starve Pakistan to death.
Editorial, Daily Mail (Islamabad), February 26, 2010, http://dailymailnews.com/0210/26/Editorial_Column/DMEditorial.php#1
LOOMING THREAT OF WATER WARS
Last year, Pakistan suffered a loss exceeding five billion rupees in paddy crop production only in the wake of water shortage after India stopped Chenab water to fill its Baglihar dam during the month of September 2008. But this was not the first instance, as India violated Indus Water Treaty many a time, and the objective seemed to be India’s attempt to dry up
Pakistan because India feels that Pakistan is a major obstacle in its hegemonic designs against the countries in the region. India’s think-tanks have been working on river diversion plans with a view to creating acute water shortage in Pakistan. The objective is to adversely impact production of wheat and other crops, and also to stoke inter-provincial conflicts over distribution of water. In the past, the world has witnessed wars between different countries of the world over religions, usurpation of territories and control of resources including oil. But in view of acute shortages of water in Africa, Middle East, Asia and elsewhere, the future wars could be fought over water.
The Indus River Basin has been an area of conflict between India and Pakistan for about four decades. Spanning 1,800 miles, the river and its tributaries together make up one of the largest irrigation canals in the world. However, the distribution of the river basin water has created friction among India and Pakistan, and also among their states and provinces. Accusations of overdrawing of share of water made by each province in Pakistan have resulted in the lack of water supplies to coastal regions of Pakistan. India and Bangladesh have also dispute over Ganges River water and the former is resorting to water theft there as well. It is too well known that water is life; it is indispensable to agriculture and in fact it is critical input into a country’s agriculture especially when it is situated in an arid or semi-arid zone. When India stopped water to fill Baglihar dam at Chenab river, Pakistan had taken up the matter with the World Bank, as Pakistan was getting 7000 to 8000 cusecs less water daily during Rabi season. By violating “Indus Water Treaty” India has reduced Pakistan’s share of water through construction of dams on the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab rivers. …
Nazia Nazar, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), March 1, 2010,  http://www.pakobserver.net/201003/01/detailnews.asp?id=17797
WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK BEYOND THE INDUS WATER TREATY
At the recent foreign secretary-level talks between India and Pakistan in New Delhi, Pakistan’s foreign office team presented a paper on water issues to India prepared by Pakistan’s Indus Water Commission.
Although water is not a core issue for the resumption of talks between the two nuclear neighbours, differences over the use of rivers assigned according to the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty have undercut peace-making efforts. As Pakistan and India’s populations grow, water for agriculture and electricity generation is in short supply. Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah talks to Dawn.com about the urgent need to resolve water-sharing disputes.
Q. India says the Kishenganga project does not violate the Indus Waters Treaty. What is Pakistan’s position?
A. The Kishenganga River runs through Kashmir, and becomes the Neelum River. Water flows through Azad Jammu and Kashmir for 165 km before joining the Jhelum at Muzaffarabad. Now 70-80 kilometres of this river also run through Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. So the water re-routed by the Kishenganga power project reduces the flow of water going to Muzaffarabad. And then, Pakistan also has one project on the Jhelum River  – the Neelum-Jhelum hyrdro-electric power project.
What are the adverse impacts of this one project according to the Indus Water Treaty? One, it reduces our annual energy generation. Two, the Kishenganga project also has an environmental impact because the depth of the water is reduced and this has an impact on the flora and fauna in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through which the Neelum flows. Three, there are technical problems in the design of the Kishenganga project such as the height of the gates and so on.
Q. But India contends that that it started its Kishenganga project earlier than Pakistan’s Neelum-Jhelum project. According to the Indus Water Treaty, India may construct a power plant on the rivers given to Pakistan provided it does not interfere with existing hydro-electric use by Pakistan. Is this true?
A. Yes. But the Jhelum waters were given to Pakistan. And going by the spirit of the treaty, while the waters are Pakistan’s to use, both countries can accrue benefits. When India made its plans known to Pakistan, that did not mean Pakistan did not have the intention [of constructing a plant]. In 1989, we told India that we are constructing a project there. India wanted to inspect the site. At the time, it was only a small exploration tunnel. Now the intention has been shown, with the Chinese being given the project. So we have a legal case. Moreover, while the total quantity of water has not been changed, there are no guarantees that India will not store or divert water into the Wullar barrage. Certainly, re-routing will impact the flow-time and therefore reduce the quantum of water [to Pakistan].
Q. Where are talks between India and Pakistan on the Kishenganga project now?
A. In 1988, we came to know about Kishenganga and we asked for details. We were told that India was just conducting investigations. India is obliged by the treaty only to give detailed plans six months prior to construction.
In 1992 or 1993, India asked to conduct its first inspection of the site of the Neelum-Jhleum project in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. That was when there was just an underground tunnel. India told us unofficially that the tunnel was an eye-wash.
Then in 1994, we were officially informed about Kishenganga, which was to be a 330 watt storage work. Now in a storage work, there is no mention of diversion.
The commission held five meetings between 1994 and 2006 and the storage height of the dam was ultimately reduced by 40 metres. But by 2006, Kishenganga became a run-off project. Pakistan’s position was that this is a new project, the run-off was not in the 1994 project, and the 1994 project should be considered abandoned.
In June 2006, we raised objections. Between 2006 and 2008 the commission held three meetings.  In 2008, Pakistan informed India that it intends to seek the opinion of a neutral expert appointed by the World Bank. India said Pakistan has no case and that there is no controversy since the Kishenganga project does not harm Pakistan’s usage. India wanted to resolve the issue at the level of the commission. So the government of Pakistan agreed to meet representatives of the government of India, but the meeting proved inconclusive.
So India and Pakistan agreed to negotiations, and in March 2009, Pakistan proposed two names of negotiators. But the Indian stance remained the same. According to the treaty, if negotiations reach a deadlock than a court of arbitration can be constituted with seven experts: two from the government of Pakistan, two from the government of India and three jointly named umpires. If these names are not jointly agreed upon, then the World Bank would help.
Pakistan’s point of view is that the direction of flow and environmental impact of the dam should be addressed by the court of arbitration, while the matter of design would be decided by the neutral expert.
Now, the Pakistan Indus Water Commission has shortlisted several names and these are with the foreign office and the law and justice ministry who have to finalise Pakistan’s two names.
Q. Will Pakistan be taking up other Indian projects with the World Bank?
A. As I said, India is planning two more power projects on the River Indus. But those of concern are the ones on the Chenab because we don’t have any storage site there. So the Chenab is more vulnerable. After constructing three, including Baglihar, India intends to construct 10 to 12 more dams on the Chenab and its tributaries.
Certainly, the treaty gives India the right, but the designs should be compliant. Already, India constructed the Wullar barrage unilaterally without informing Pakistan.
Q. It is said that the Baglihar dam issue was settled by the World Bank in India’s favour because Pakistan did not raise the objections in time. Do you agree with that?
A. Both parties had different points of view. When we approached the World Bank, India blocked us because it did not want a neutral expert. So the fact that a neutral expert was appointed was a small victory. The expert asked for documentation from us, which we provided.  India believed that Pakistan was maligning them, but the fact is that the neutral expert settled three points in favour of Pakistan and one in India’s favour. And both parties bore the cost of the proceedings.
Both India and Pakistan need these waters and there is a need for candidness and transparency. Political considerations should not shadow the technical aspects. Unfortunately, the technical side is subordinate to the political side.
For example, India did not provide us updated flow data. In August 2008, India violated the treaty by not providing accurate data on the initial filling of the Baglihar dam. The treaty says the initial filling should not reduce the water flowing into Pakistan. So the initial filling of the Baglihar reduced Pakistan’s water and India should compensate for the lost water.
Q. What impact has the construction of Indian power projects had on Pakistan’s waters? We are, after all, facing shortages for agricultural use and electricity generation.
A. Apart from the Baglihar dam, neither Pakistan nor India has had problems with the Indus Water Treaty. But looking to the future, I foresee problems, especially given climate changes. India has already constructed 50-60, medium-sized projects and it plans more than a hundred. One hundred and fifty will be in the small catchment areas in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This is human intervention: imagine how many trees will be cut, and the resulting environmental impact? They will also impact Pakistan’s water, given the environmental degradation and increased sediment flow.
I think we will now have to look beyond the treaty for solutions. India is allowed run-off hydro-electric projects according to the treaty, but two or three is different from more than a hundred.
In 1960, Pakistan did not want to give three of its rivers to India, but it did. But clearly the World Bank had not factored in climate change and the impact of human intervention. I think the World Bank treaty is likely to be jeopardised. Already, we are facing a shortage in the western rivers, how can we then compensate for the lack of water in the eastern rivers?
Q. Do you think it is time to expand the scope of the treaty?
A. There are some issues with that. Right now, we need to protect and implement the treaty in its full spirit without re-visiting it. But both governments should initiate talks along with expert stakeholders.
Q. Would this be in India’s interest?
A. Yes, because we are neighbours. The Indus Water Treaty was not a happy marriage but we accepted it. But Pakistan should take action at the appropriate time: what happens to the state of Bahawalpur where the rivers Sutlej and Ravi are dry?
 Amber Rahim Shamsi, Dawn (Islamabad), March 3, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/02-jamaat-shah-02
FUTURE LADEN WITH HYDROLOGICAL WARFARE
There is a consensus among political experts that the world’s future wars will be fought over water, not oil. Experts say it would be the era in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over, or controlled through surrogate armies and client states. Surprisingly, where the whole world is fortunately lagging a bit behind for entering into this ill-fated era of ‘hydrological warfare’, the Asian region has surpassed the rest of the world due to Indian expansionist agenda.
It is a hard fact that water wars remain no more a part of science fiction movies they are happening now. Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh are already a victim of Indian water thievery. India has plans to construct 62 dams/hydro¬electric units on rivers Chenab and Jhelum thus enabling it to render these rivers dry by 2014. The hydroelectric plants both built or are under construction will enable India to block entire water of Chenab for 20-25 days. India has also started construction of three dams Nimoo Bazgo, Dumkhar and Chutak on river Indus, which will have devastating impact on Pakistan’s northern areas. Chutak is under construction on River Suru. In case of any of these dams collapse or large quantity of water is deliberately released, it will endanger Bhasha dam but also submerge Skardu city and airport. Karakorum Highway (KKH) between Besham and Jaglot would also wash away. India has also persuaded Afghanistan to create a water reservoir on the River Kabul, another tributary of river Indus.
Moreover, India has dispute with Bangladesh over Farrakha Barrage, with Nepal over Mahakali River and with Pakistan over 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. Without any qualms, India is busy building dams on all rivers flowing into Pakistan from occupied Kashmir to gain control of western rivers in violation of Indus treaty. This is being deliberately done under a well thought out strategy to render Pakistan’s link-canal system redundant, destroy agriculture of Pakistan which is its mainstay thus turning it into a desert.
Unfortunately, after using the water of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Nepali rivers India is escalating its water terrorism to Iran as well. India is building Salma Dam on Hari Rud river basin in northwest in Afghanistan, which flows into Iran and forms Sistan delta. Originally Salma Dam was constructed in 1976 while in 2004 Water and Power Consultancy Service (India) Ltd (WAPCOS) began reconstruction of Salma Dam power project in 2004. The completion of the project has been unnecessarily delayed and it is now expected to be commissioned by 2011 instead of 2009.
Salma Dam Power project is India’s largest project in Afghanistan with a total estimated cost of USD 116 million. This mega project aimed at generating 42MW of power and involves erection of 110 KV power transmission lines to Herat city conspires to restrict flow of water to Iran. By doing so, India will not only restrict river Hari Rud’s flow of water to Iran but also barren the Sistan inland delta inhibiting some 400,000 people whose economy strongly depends on agriculture and the goods and services provided by the wetlands.
The Sistan delta in Iran is located at the end of a closed basin. The entire contributing basin is about 200,000 km and is largely located in Afghanistan. The river system discharges into an inland depression which, when sufficient water is available, forms the Hamoun lakes. These lakes are fresh and one of the main and most valuable aquatic ecosystems in Iran and are registered wetlands in the Ramsar and the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve conventions. The inflowing rivers from Afghanistan support the irrigated agriculture in the Sistan delta but are also the source for the lake system around the delta. And blocking the flow of Afghan River’s water into Iran will mean less water for the hamouns with resulting lower average water coverage of the lakes. Ultimately, this will not only endanger the ecosystem that the hamouns support but also the lively hoods of its people that depend on the goods and services that the lake provides.
The Water Research Institute of Iran, in cooperation with ITC and Alterra from the Netherlands carried out a study with an extensive analysis of all existing information on the river basin including the natural resource system and its infrastructure, in Iran as well as in Afghanistan. Analyses showed that the hamouns lakes are under serious risk of loosing their ecological value and potential developments will decrease the inflow to the lakes with more than 50%. The government of Iran has stated their concerns to the Afghan authorities urging them to resolve water sharing issue between the two countries before the construction of Salma Dam but to no avail. It is because of Afghan authorities but due to Indian interest in building Dam on Hari Rud. Isn’t it intriguing as to what interests India might have in constructing Salma Dam? Well, India has deep interests in any such activity whether economic, political, geographical, religious or cultural which can help consolidate its hegemonic ambitions.
Indian interests lie in goodwill of Afghan masses is mere an eyewash. Indian keenness to reconstruct Salma Dam is aimed at encouraging Afghan masses to agitate against the Iranian interference in the construction of Salma Dam in order to create rift between Afghanistan and Iran at one hand and to appease USA by depriving Iran of appropriate flow of water thus harming agricultural economy on the other hand. India by and large has no interest in developing Afghanistan besides keeping it under thumb. Paradoxically, Indian pledged huge aid package to Afghanistan has neither been dispensed nor any mega development project for Afghanistan had commenced in time. Instead, in last 7 years India remain more committed in buying time for India-owned projects in Afghanistan on one or the other pretext and increasing number of RAW agents in the garb of security personnel, workers, doctors, engineers etc.
Factually, India needs the Afghanistan link for many reasons i.e. to maintain its links with the Central Asian states, to carry out subversive activities against Pakistan considered its enemy No 1 and to appease US and western allies. During Taliban rule, India faced difficulties in maintaining its influence in the Central Asian region, which is not only energy rich but its large consumer market is of geo-strategic importance to India. According to an Indian analyst, Meena Singh Roy,“India as an extended neighbour of CARs, has major geo-strategic and economic interests in this region”. That is why India is investing heavily in building road s and infrastructure linking Afghanistan with the Central Asian states. Apart from Salma dam project, Indian oil companies are active in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Moreover, in March 2007, after completing the refurbishment of a military base at Ayni, India became fourth country, apart from Russia, US and Germany to have a base in Central Asia. The base is of strategic importance to India. An Indian analyst Sudha Ramachandran observed that. “ A base at Ayni allows India rapid response to any emerging threat from the volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan arc … It also gives New Delhi a limited but significant capability to inject special forces into hostile theaters as and when the situation demands … in the event of military confrontation with Pakistan, India would be able to strike Pakistan’s rear from Tajik soil… Ayni has to do with India’s growing interests in Central Asia as well”.
Salma Dam like projects is manifestation of India’s dual regional policy according to which neighbours are regarded as enemies and an enemy’s immediate neighbour as a friend. Also all such dams are a clear violation of the rights of lower riparian according to international law. Yet, USA is looking up to India as central player in resolving Afghanistan problem. But what can one possibly expect from a country which stoops to lowest level of immorality by stealing water and blocking rivers to turn agricultural lands barren? If US really wants peace and stability in the region then it should restrict India from making war-ravaged Afghanistan a chessboard to pursue her own agenda. Better it would be for India to refrain from playing foul games, testing the patience of Afghans and victimizing other regional neighbours through its water terrorism before it is too late. On the other hand, it would be better for Afghan authorities too, that despite playing in the hands of Indian and relying on the alien clutches’, they better should struggle themselves to stand on their own feet and realize the Indian conspiracy before time runs out.
Gauhar Zahid Malik, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), March 4, 2010, http://www.pakobserver.net/201003/04/detailnews.asp?id=18440
IS PAKISTAN READY FOR WATER WAR? 
At the very outset I wish I am wrong but the most serious problem that Pakistan could be facing in the next five to ten years would be extreme water scarcity not only due to global warming caused by changes in the weather systems but due to our own failures and, if I may say, follies and criminal negligence as well.
There is a realization the world over that future wars would be on depleting water resources and this, I fear, is particularly true in the case of Pakistan. We have miserably failed to build water reservoirs and protect our water rights on three rivers - Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, on which Pakistan has priority rights under the Indus Water Treaty.
It is the apathy on the part of our leadership that they politicized the construction of Kalabagh Dam, downstream Tarbela, and indulged in unforgivable delay in building other major reservoirs including Diamer-Bhasha. Construction of such dams involves billions of dollars and will take about a decade to complete and even if we start the construction of Diamer-Bhasha Dam right now, which again is being politicised, it would be too late. People in canal irrigated areas, like southern Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan do not realize the horrible scenario when there will be no water for crops and maybe for drinking purposes as well.
We will never know the worth of water till the well is dry and that is the case in Pakistan as our neighbour is usurping our water rights and we are fighting among ourselves on petty issues relating to internal distribution of water.
The world over water is a single substantial issue that mars bilateral relations among subcontinental countries. The issues of cross-border water distribution, utilization, management and mega irrigation hydro-electric power projects affecting the upper and lower riparian countries are gradually taking center-stage in defining interstate relations as water scarcity increases and both drought and floods make life, too, often miserable.
In December 2007 UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon while speaking at the first Asia-Pacific water summit said a struggle by nations to secure sources of clean water would be “potent fuel” for war and that water crisis in Asia was especially troubling.
Indus Water Basin Treaty was signed in 1960 after lengthy interventions of World Bank. Pakistan had accepted the Treaty at the stake of its very survival and assurances from India that it will not interfere with rivers over which Pakistan was given the right. However India never honoured its promises.
In this scenario, I think that while Jammu and Kashmir is the core issue, the discord on waters of Jhelum and Chenab, over Baglihar and several other projects being constructed by India upstream, Jhelum, Chenab and Indus have the potential to provoke a war between the two countries. If peace was desired in the area then water and Kashmir will have to be taken as inextricably interlinked issues and resolved as such.
From the record, I can say with authority that Indian behaviour had been in violation of the international norms, arguing India utilized its share of the eastern rivers but after eighties it started tampering with Pakistani rivers.
Pakistan has been opposing the setting up of the Kishanganga Hydropower Project on Kishnaganga (known as Neelum in Azad Kashmir) as it involves diversion of water from Neelum to another tributary of Jhelum, called Bunar Mandhumati near Bandipur in Baramula District which is not allowed under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. Consequently Jhelum will face a 27 per cent water deficit when the project gets completed.
Kashmir is a place where water may not be the worst of the problems, yet it's a growing factor in what is already a conflict situation. Baglihar and Kishanganga with plans to construct 62 dams/hydro-electric units on Rivers Chenab and Jhelum and diversion of water from these storages through tunnels to Indian rivers would enable New Delhi to render these rivers dry in the next five years. It is because of our survival resting on rivers that Kashmir has been referred to as Pakistan's jugular vein. That all this is part of the overall water strangulation strategy of India is also borne out by the fact that India, taking advantage of its influence over Afghanistan, has succeeded in convincing Karzai regime to build a dam on River Kabul and set up Kama Hydroelectric Project using 0.5 MAF of Pakistan water with serious repercussions on the water flow of River Indus.
According to the Indus Water Treaty, the projects commissioned first would be accorded top priority. Due to criminal negligence, our leadership failed to start any major project in Azad Kashmir and as such it is likely that the Neelam-Jhelum project would be of no benefit as the Kishanganga project would leave very little water for use. Currently, India's State-owned National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) has set 2016 as its deadline for completion of the project, while Pakistan plans to complete its project in 2017, if everything goes well. According to reports by Indian media the NHPC has been directed to expedite its project and commission it before Pakistan had a chance to complete the Neelam-Jhelum project.
Apart from Kishanganga, India has initiated four other mega projects on the Chenab and Jhelum Rivers in Occupied Kashmir that can result in major water shortage in Pakistan in due course of time. India has also planned three dams on River Indus which will have devastating impact on Pakistan's Northern Areas. These are Nimoo Bazgo, Dumkhar, and Chutak. Work on Nimoo Bazgo hydropower project, 70 km from Leh is already underway while Chutak is under construction on River Suru. In case any of these dams collapses or large quantity of water is deliberately released, it will not only endanger our proposed Bhasha Dam but also submerge Skardu city and airport. In that case strategic KKH between Besham and Jaglot would also be washed away.
Stopping water by India is the policy of desertification of Pakistan creating invisible aggression and concomitant serious consequences for the agriculture of the country. It is a hostile and destructive attack on our sovereign rights over waters of three rivers and we must take this battle to the international arbitrators. Pakistan has to assert its right over the eastern rivers and must do everything for strict implementation of the Treaty.
I am of the considered view that in the given and future scenario, water is as much a nuclear flashpoint as is Kashmir. We must make the world realize seriously that if it is interested in peace in this region, it must act urgently to help both the countries restart negotiations and resolve the contentious issue of water on an urgent basis.
I say this because in the coming years, Pakistan would be in a very difficult situation. According to a recent United Nations report, Pakistan's water supply has dropped from about 5,000 cubic meters per person in the 1950s to 1,420 cubic meters in 2009 - perilously close to the threshold at which water shortage becomes an impediment to economic development and a serious hazard to human health.
As a nation, we have the tendency that we wake up when the water passes over our head. Last year there were less than normal monsoon rains and this year the winter rains were much delayed and below normal. So some attention is being paid by the leadership at least through statements. However, unfortunately, we have short memory and forget or overlook this problem when there are normal rains and near normal water is available in our storages.
In the face of worsening water shortages and ensuing serious crisis, I would caution the political leadership to pay its full attention and make the water issue its single top most priority whether it is dispute with India or building of storages at all the identified sites and allocate at least half of the PSDP under this head. That would also create tens of thousands of jobs for the skilled and unskilled workforce. Let us delay some non-essential projects for a few years for the sake of the country and future of the coming generations. If we just manage our present sources of water efficiently, I am confident that the vast barren lands could be brought under cultivation boosting our agricultural production and generating 25,000 MW of electricity through hydel means thus saving billions of dollars of foreign exchange being spent on import of furnace oil. That amount could then be diverted to other sectors for socio-economic development of the country.
The question is will we wake up now or left to cry when the water had already passed over our head. I pray the leadership would listen and act timely and decisively.
Zahid Malik, Pakisatan Observer (Islamabad), March 15, 2010,  http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=20374
THE WATER CRISIS
There is no disputing Punjab Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif's bold assertion that since New Delhi has cut off Pakistan's share of the Indus waters as part of its hegemonic designs, we must talk about the matter eyeball to eyeball. He also rightly stated that our agriculture has suffered greatly on account of this water theft. The CM knows well that the economy and livelihood of thousands of families in Sindh and Punjab, whose only bread and butter is agriculture, are doomed to destruction if New Delhi goes on indefinitely blocking the water flowing into Pakistan. On the other hand, former head of ISI General Hamid Gul, speaking at a seminar organised by Nazria-i-Pakistan Trust, has shown another motive behind India's machinations. He maintained that water was essential for our economy but stressed that it was equally important for the country's defence as well. He got it right by pointing to the Chenab canal network as the first line of defence, without which the country's conventional defence was impossible. It is really good to know that more and more voices are joining the chorus in blowing a whistle on India. However, the onus lies on the federal government to seriously raise the issue, most of which is about building pressure on New Delhi to behave like a lawful state. The World Bank should also be asked to step in as being the third party in the Indus Waters Treaty. It is its duty to ensure that there is no violation of the accord. The Indian water theft is now turning us into an agricultural wasteland. The phenomenon of desertification has picked up pace and has claimed vast tracts of cultivated lands. Farmers are in a virtual catch-22 situation as they do not know where to get water for their crops. For the past two years, among others, our wheat crop has been the biggest casualty of the Indian diversion of water. What is really chilling is the fact that the glaciers, our main source of fresh water, are melting at an alarmingly fast pace because of the effects of global warming. Consequently, the supply to the domestic sector has been reduced. The tube wells have to be dug much deeper but still the water is brackish. New Delhi is deftly exploiting this situation through scores of dams. Its cunning designs can be gauged from the fact that it has ganged up with the Karzai government and is currently building a dam on River Kabul as well.
Editorial, Nation (Islamabad), March 24, 2010, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/24-Mar-2010/The-water-crisis
INDIA PLANS 52 PROJECTS TO CONTROL PAKISTAN’S WATER
Chairman Indus Water Treaty Council Hafiz Zahoor-ul-Hassan Dahr has said that previous 131 rounds of talks between Pakistan and India under Indus Water Treaty bore no fruits and the latest dialogue would meet the same result. He also warned that Pakistan could become another Somalia and Ethiopia. Talking to ‘The Nation’ on Monday, Zahoor pointed to various projects launched by India to divert the water flow of three rivers entering Pakistan from Occupied Kashmir and said these projects were aimed at controlling the water of Chenab, Jhelum and Indus rivers, which were illegal and a clear violation of Indus Water Treaty. He said India was constructing 52 illegal dams, including five large ones, of which as many as 32 small dams had already been completed while 12 others would be finalised in 2014.
Zahoor said New Delhi was also constructing Kargil Dam, the second largest in the world, on Indus, adding that that India was getting support from a consortium of nine non-Muslim countries, four multi-national companies, an international donor agency and three intelligence agencies to accomplish 17 mega water projects for controlling Pakistan’s water. He said India had seized 70 per cent water of Chenab and Jhelum rivers as a result of which over 0.9 million acres of land, being irrigated through Marala Headworks, was now presenting the view of Thar and Cholistan deserts.
Dahr said the Baglihar Dam was causing an annual loss of Rs140 billion to Pakistan and feared that India would soon stop entire water flow of Chenab and Jhelum rivers, turning 18 districts of Punjab and six districts of Sindh into a desert. He also accused Israel and the US for backing India, which resulted in bulldozing the Indus Water Treaty and lamented the fact that the international community was silent over the issue.
He urged the government to take the issue seriously to Indian water aggression. “If the rulers fail to adopt immediate measures, India will turn us into Somalia and Ethiopia,” he feared.
According to him, the anti-Pakistan forces have united and evolved a plan to turn the country into a desert and the irrigation system is being given to a Swedish company on contract to forward the vested interests of India. He said India was spending billions of dollars on this project with the financial support of Israel. He said it was very much clear that the Indian and Israeli lobbies were working on long-term projects to harm Pakistan.
Nation (Islamabad), March 30, 2010, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Islamabad/30-Mar-2010/India-plans-52-projects-to-control-Pakistans-water
INDIA AND PAKISTAN FEUD OVER INDUS WATERS 
Fight Threatens Peace Talks as Islamabad Requests Arbitration Over New Delhi's Plans for a Hydroelectric Plant
A feud over water between India and Pakistan is threatening to derail peace talks between the two neighbors.
The countries have harmoniously shared the waters of the Indus
River for decades. A 50-year-old treaty regulating access to water from the
river and its tributaries has been viewed as a bright spot for India and
Pakistan, which have gone to war three times since 1947.
Now, the Pakistanis complain that India is hogging water upstream,
which is hurting Pakistani farmers downstream. Pakistani officials say they
will soon begin formal arbitration over a proposed Indian dam. At a
meeting that started Sunday, Pakistan raised objections to new Indian dam
projects on the Indus River and asked for satellite monitoring of river
flows.
"Water I see emerging as a very serious source of tension between
Pakistan and India," said Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan's foreign
minister, in an interview Friday. He said he has raised the issue with Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
A senior Indian government official denied India is violating the
treaty. He blamed Pakistan's water shortage on changing weather patterns
and the country's poor water management. He called the strident rhetoric
from Pakistani officials a "political gimmick…designed to place yet one
more agenda item in our already complex relationship." Indian officials
declined comment on the record.
The latest dispute revolves around India's plans to build a 330¬
megawatt hydroelectric power project on the Kishenganga River, a tributary
of the Indus. India says it is well within its rights to build the dam. The
project has been on the drawing board since the late 1980s and is expected
to cost about $800 million.
Pakistan says New Delhi's plans to divert the course of the river will reduce its flow by a third in the winter. That would make it unfeasible for Pakistan to move ahead with its own plans for a hydroelectric dam downstream.
Pakistan wants to put the Kishenganga project before an arbitration panel—the first time that mechanism of the treaty will have been used. If India agrees, a seven-person court of arbitration would include two members appointed by each country, and three outsiders. India hasn't yet responded formally to the proposal, according to the Pakistan delegation to the meeting.
"We're already a water-stressed country," Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan's Indus waters commissioner, said ahead of this week's meeting. India's construction of new dams is "aggravating the stresses."
The water dispute comes as the relationship between the nuclear-armed neighbors is at an inflection point. India last month invited Pakistan to discuss the resumption of regular peace talks, and the two countries' foreign secretaries met in Delhi Feb. 25. A water squabble could upset those peace efforts.
That would deal a major blow to Indian Prime Minister Singh, who views engagement with Pakistan as the best way to contain terrorism. Mr. Singh wants Pakistan's aid in bringing to justice Pakistan-based militants that New Delhi believes carried out the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, a bloody siege that killed 166 people.
Further deterioration of relations between New Delhi and Islamabad would also be a setback for Washington's efforts to stabilize the region. Pakistan has told the U.S. that tensions with India on its eastern border over the disputed territory of Kashmir have prevented it from cracking down more aggressively on Taliban and al Qaeda leaders directing the insurgency in Afghanistan.
Islamist groups in Pakistan have taken up the water issue as a new focus. "If our government doesn't act to resolve this issue then the people will take it in to their own hands. If water doesn't flow in to these rivers, then blood will," said Hafiz Khalid Waleed, the political affairs chief of Jamaat-ud-Dawah, an Islamic charity. India and others call the charity a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group it says orchestrated the Mumbai terrorist attacks in Nov. 2008. Mr. Waleed denies any link to terrorism, calling it "American propaganda."
Water scarcity is a growing political issue across the globe, from the Middle East to the U.S. West. South Asia's water politics date back to Britain's partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947, when newly created nations India and Pakistan wrangled over how to divide resources.
The Indus River, whose waters Britain had harnessed through a vast system of irrigation canals, was a crucial lifeline to farmers in the Punjab region stretching across both countries. But India and Pakistan were fighting over control of Kashmir, where several Indus tributaries begin.
After years of tense negotiations, India and Pakistan signed the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960 with the help of the World Bank. As part of the treaty—which is widely viewed by water experts as a model of how water conflicts can be managed—each side got unrestricted use of three rivers and rights to use the others for nonconsumptive purposes such as flood control, navigation and bathing. India was granted limited agricultural usage of Pakistan's rivers, plus the right to build hydroelectric projects, as long as they don't store or divert large amounts of water.
The treaty provides for bureaucrats appointed by both governments to meet regularly, exchange data, and resolve disputes. Commissioners have held more than 200 site inspections and meetings since 1960, even during times of war.
Yet Pakistan's rows with India have intensified as its water situation has worsened over the years. Water availability in Pakistan has fallen 70% since the early 1950s to 1,500 cubic meters per capita. It is expected to reach the 1,000-cubic-meter level considered officially "scarce" by international standards in 25 years, according to a report last year by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Pakistani officials acknowledge their water woes aren't caused by India's damming of rivers alone. Major reservoirs are filling with sediment picked up by the rivers on their routes to the sea. Canals are aging and breaking down. The World Bank says soil erosion and poor irrigation are sapping roughly 1% from Pakistan's Gross Domestic Product growth.
Skeptics in India say Pakistan is simply looking for a scapegoat as it struggles to manage its internal water politics.
The especially arid province of Sindh, for example, blames the powerful upstream province of Punjab for consuming too much.
"Their water management is in terrible shape, and it's convenient to put the onus on India," said G. Parthasarathy, a former Indian envoy to Pakistan.
But Pakistani officials say New Delhi's actions are exacerbating a precarious situation.
This year the Pakistan province of Punjab—the political heartland of the nation and a major producer of wheat, rice, maize and sugar cane—is facing unprecedented water shortages. At harvest time in Mandi Bahauddin, an area in the north of Punjab province of relatively prosperous farmland, the wheat still grows waist-high.
But farmers here complain that yields and incomes have dropped by a third in the past five years because of water shortages. In the past, canals used to supply water for irrigation year-round. They are now empty for about four months each year. That forces villagers to pump groundwater, which is fast turning brackish and causing diseases like hepatitis, said Tariq Mehmood Allowana, a local farmer and member of the provincial assembly.
In the past, the area's only problem was regular flooding. India's dams stopped this, causing a dearth of water instead, says Mr. Allowana, who owns 25 acres of wheat fields. The farmer represents the Pakistan Peoples Party of the late former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Farmers say they have stopped cultivating rice—a water-intensive crop—except for personal use. Nearby, more than half of the Chenab river bed has become a dusty plain where children play with the flow reduced to a trickle.
"India is engaged in an economic warfare against Pakistan. If the problem persists for another five years the whole area will become barren," said Mr. Allowana, as a group of farmers nearby filled irrigation channels from groundwater supplies using a diesel-fueled pump.
Over the years, tensions have built as Pakistan has objected to the size and technical design of various Indian projects. India says it has 33 Indus-related hydrological projects at various stages of implementation, and all have been contested in one way or another by Pakistan. India also says it has yet to make use of its limited rights to store water on Pakistan's rivers or use it for limited irrigation.
"We've found there's a pattern in Pakistan of raising technical issues ad nauseam to stall a project or delay a project indefinitely," the senior Indian official said Friday.
In 2005 Pakistan raised issues with the Baglihar dam, an Indian power project on the Chenab river—one of those allotted to Pakistan— saying it would store too much water upstream and reduce downstream flow to Pakistan. The countries agreed in 2007 to let the World Bank appoint an independent expert, who ruled that India had to make minor modifications to the dam, such as lowering its height. Pakistan now contends the dam, which began operations in 2008, is reducing the flow of the Chenab below levels stipulated in the treaty. India denies this.
Pakistan wants Washington to play a mediating role with India—in the water dispute and wider issues like the Kashmir conflict. The U.S. is pushing for tighter relations with Pakistan as it steps up pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan but has to balance this with its close ties to India. For now, the U.S. is treading carefully, offering Pakistan stepped-up economic aid and military hardware supplies.
Pakistan raised the water issue in Washington during an official visit last week. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has signaled that Washington isn't interested in mediating on water issues.
A State Department spokesperson pointed to an interview Mrs. Clinton recently did with a Pakistani news channel in which she said it would be "sensible" to stick to the Indus Waters Treaty for resolving disputes.
The Indian projects that Pakistan says are draining its water resources are primarily on Indus tributaries in Kashmir. Some experts say the water issue is a back door way for Islamic militants to push their political agenda regarding Kashmir.
“They’re saying, 'We must liberate Kashmir to save our water,” said
B.G. Verghese, a veteran journalist who has studied water issues closely and is a visiting professor at the Center for Policy Research, a New Delhi think tank.

Map of the rivers and dams in dispute.
Amol Sharm & Tom Wright, Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151591013994592.ht ml?mod=WSJ_World_LeadStory
WATER TALKS RUN DRY 
Just like the water in the Mangla and Tarbela dams, the recent round of talks between the Indus Water Commissions of Pakistan and India have reached dead level. Aimed at removing the many doubts and reservations of both countries — more so by Pakistan — in respect to water distribution, shortage and the construction of controversial new projects — Nimoo Bazgoo and Chutak — the three-day conference produced no significant breakthrough in dispelling these apprehensions.
An annual deliberation since 1960, when the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) was signed, the Indus Water Commissions met this year to address Pakistan’s innate fear that India’s end goal was to cordon off water to the country by constructing hydel generation projects on the rivers Chenab and Jehlum in occupied Kashmir. Pakistani reservations extended to the accusation that India had designed these projects along the lines of the maximum allowed figures as stated in the Indus Water Treaty. This allows the Indians to stay dangerously close to the limits demarcated by the IWT while retaining the potential to manipulate water flows. It is the design of these projects that is proving to be contentious for Pakistan. It is not surprising then that, parallel to these talks, New Delhi has issued a statement confronting Pakistan’s claims by saying that any shortage faced by its neighbour was due to the adverse weather conditions and lack of rainfall. Although the emotionally wrought Pakistani psyche may be tempted to discount this argument, it cannot be gainsaid that Nature may very well be to blame for the water crises looming over the nation. India’s climate prediction may very well be proved or disproved during further talks scheduled in May of this year in New Delhi, where the advent of summer will bring to light whether the problem has heightened due to ‘facilitated’ water shortage or been eased because of the melting snows.
Pakistan is also miffed at the fact that India has, allegedly, violated some of the IWT’s fine print by failing to inform Pakistan about the construction of these hydro projects some six months in advance. With India’s denial of almost all the points presented by the Pakistani side, the provision of details regarding such projects falls short of being redeemed.
However, Pakistan has made some headway in getting India to agree to the setting up of a telemetry system to ensure the measurement of actual river flows, so as to quell doubts about India’s alleged aim to hold back water.
The outcome has come to the sorry stalemate that if, in the proposed May deliberations, Pakistan and India fail to arrive at any conclusions, the World Bank may have to act as third party arbitrator to sort out the conundrum. Seeing that this guarantor has been the mediator for the occurrence of these talks in the first place, in its presence some sort of reconciliatory possibilities are perceived.
Although the IWT has been getting its undue share of flak from certain elements who accuse it of being a document legitimising the sell-out of Pakistan’s eastern rivers, it cannot be stressed enough how defiantly the IWT has stood the test of time. India and Pakistan have engaged in wars and hostilities over the years, but the treaty has consistently remained one of the few common meeting platforms for these traditional enemies.
It must be borne in mind that, at the end of the day, the ecosystem plays by its own rules that transcend political boundaries. Rational solutions ought to be sought instead of playing the blame game. We are living in an era of unpredictable climate change where the only way to battle the elements is to increase cooperation and mutual acknowledgment of a common problem.
Editorial, Daily Times (Lahore), April 1, 2010, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\04\01\story_1-4¬2010_pg3_1
INCONCLUSIVE WATER TALKS
Once again, the Pak-India water talks have remained inconclusive, thanks to India’s convoluted interpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty. If there was any tangible outcome of the three days of extensive parleys, it was the promise to meet in New Delhi by the end of May. So sterile were the talks that the thoroughly exasperated Syed Jamat Ali Shah, the Pakistan’s commissioner to the water treaty, even threatened to seek intervention of the treaty’s guarantor, the World Bank, or third-party arbitration. But his Indian counterpart, Commissioner G. Aranga Nathan, was adamant that the “Indians are living by the treaty and would continue doing so”. Every time the Pakistani side produced concrete evidence of some violations of the treaty, the standard response that emanated from the other side of the table was ‘back home, we will look into it’. But they wouldn’t, and would see to it that Pakistan was presented with a situation of fait accompli. Naturally, there is growing opinion in Pakistan that it should approach the World Bank to secure New Delhi’s faithful implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty. In his words, “We will now have to look beyond the treaty for solutions. India is allowed run-off hydro-electric projects ...but two or three is not the same thing as more than a hundred”. But, there does exist also an opposite point of view and that is that Pakistan should persevere in its present mode - because, may be India’s real intention behind its foot-dragging on the treaty is to wriggle out of it. As we know, rivers enhance the lingering phenomenon of water disputes, even water-wars, between the upper riparian and lower riparian states. But there is plenty of history and case law to suggest that such disputes are amenable to peaceful resolutions. The Indus Waters Treaty is one such dispute-resolving mechanism between Pakistan and India, and it is still in the field despite New Delhi’s consistent violations. Of course, during the 48-year life of the Indus Waters Treaty, availability of water has acquired new, accentuated importance. Not only climate change is drastically affecting the flow of river waters, there is growing demand for more water to irrigate more land to feed the growing populations.
Then, the water table is lowering; in case of Pakistan, much more rapidly, increasing dependence on river water. So instead of scrapping the treaty or rendering it ineffective, it would be in the fitness of things that it is refurbished by enlarging its scope, by re-writing its Addendum. Being lower riparian, Pakistan suffers at the hands of India’s haughtiness. If India insists it is not stealing Pakistan’s water, it should readily agree to the proposal made at the recent meeting that the telemetry system should be installed and information on water-flow rate is passed onto Pakistani concerned quarters, on a daily basis. In fact, the theft is on such a large scale that just the Chenab influx is down by 30 percent because of the Baglihar project, built in blatant violation of the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan’s opposition to the Kishenganga hydro-power project in Occupied Kashmir stems from its fear that the Neelam’s water flow would decrease by almost 30 percent, with concomitant negative effect on the proposed Neelam-Jhelum hydel power station. How India responds to Pakistan’s demand for some changes in its designs for the Chutak and Nimoo Bazgo dams is the litmus test for its sincerity in implementing the Indus Waters Treaty, in letter and spirit. May be the rising tide of chauvinistic politics, back home, held back the Indian officials from taking a clear position. Therefore, it may be worthwhile exploring the possibility of introducing back-channel diplomacy to help fuller implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty. After all, this is the only way to resolve growing differences on river waters - unless India plans to turn Pakistan into a desert.
Editorial, Daily Mail, (Islamabad), April 5, 2010, http://dailymailnews.com/0410/05/Editorial_Column/DMEditorial.php#1
THREAT OF WATER WARS 
The canal system in India was introduced during 1817 by the then Governor General of India, Lord Ellenborough. A mega project stipulating the construction of 5483 miles of main channel and 29,282 distributaries was undertaken. It was first entrusted to Sir Proby Cautley, English engineer and palaeontologist. He established his famous training centre at the Gota Canal at Motala Werstad, Sweden, in 1822 that produced many brilliant engineers. His efforts bore fruit for the Indians as well, as part of the human urge for a peaceful co-existence. Then the colonial age in Europe ushered in, resulting in the capture of as many countries as possible. Consequently, the East India Company got its hold on entire India by 1857 AD. However, the partition of India in 1947, which was not anticipated at that time, triggered an array of new problems - water being one of its key issues. In an unprecedented triumph of water diplomacy, the Pakistani engineers together with their Indian counterparts and the World Bank negotiated the Indus Waters Treaty, giving Pakistan the right in perpetuity to the waters of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which accounts for 75 percent of the flow of the whole Indus system. As time passed, the population of India and Pakistan grew. In Pakistan alone, it was estimated around 17 million in 1901 that became around 32 million in 1947. It was around 34 millions at the time of census 1951 and about 140 million during the last decade. India crossed the one billion mark. The first challenge arose because of the ‘lines of partition’ of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent that severed the irrigated heartland of Punjab from the life-giving waters of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers. Punjab being densely settled area and the beneficiary of irrigation system, besides rapid population growth the need for water has also increased. At present, Pakistan is one of the world’s most arid countries with an average rainfall of under 240mm a year. Currently, India has 26 major rivers along with their numerous tributaries, making up the river system of India. All the major rivers of India originate from one of the three main watersheds:
  The Himalya and the Karakoram ranges
  Vindhya and Satpura ranges and Chotanagpur plateau in central India
  Sahyadri or Western Ghats in western India. The Himalayas serve a very important purpose. The Himalayas, about 2,400 kilometres in length and varying in width from 240 to 330 kilometres, are made up of three parallel ranges - the Greater Himalayas, the Lesser Himalayas and the Outer Himalayas, which is the highest mountain range in the world. It extends along the northern frontiers of Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Burma having approximately 6,000 meters in average height and containing the highest peaks such as Mount Everest (8,796 meters) on the China-Nepal border. Then K2 (8,611 meters), also known as Mount Godwin-Austen and in China as Qogir Feng, which is located in an area that is claimed by India, Pakistan, and China.

There is yet another mountain known as Kanchenjunga (8,598 meters) located on the India-Nepal border. The snow line average is from 4,500 to 6,000 meters on the southern side of the Greater Himalayas and 5,500 to 6,000 meters on the northern side. Because of climatic conditions, the snow line in the eastern Himalayas averages 4,300 meters, while in the western Himalayas it averages 5,800 meters.
The Lesser Himalayas, located in northwestern India, ranges from 1,500 to 5,000 meters in height. The Outer or Southern Himalayas, averaging 900 to 1,200 meters in elevation, lie between the Lesser Himalayas and the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Although the Trans-Himalaya Range is divided from the Great Himalayan Range for most of its length, it merges with the Great Himalayan Range in the western section - the Karakoram Range - where India, Pakistan, and China meet. Moreover, the southern slopes of each of the Himalayan ranges are too steep to accumulate snow. The northern slopes generally are forested below the snow line. Between the ranges are extensive high plateaus, deep gorges, and fertile valleys, such as the vales of Kashmir and Kulu. They provide a physical screen within which the monsoon system operates and are the source of the great river systems that water the alluvial plains below. As a result of erosion, the rivers coming from the mountains carry vast quantities of silt that enrich the plains.
In Indian Punjab, the only natural resource for water are the three rivers
- Ravi, Beas and Sutlej - that flow in its territory. But 75 percent of its water was given to the adjoining non-riparian states of Haryana and Rajasthan. The total estimated water in these three rivers is about 32 million acre feet. Punjab alone needs a total of 52 units and thus is short of 20 million. Pakistan has objected to the construction of 67 projects being undertaken by India on the Indus, besides opposing the construction of Kishanganga Dam, Wullar Barrage Dam on the Jhelum, Baghliar, Salal and Bursar Dams on the Chenab. If we look at the water stress versus any country’s resources, India is in a much better position than Pakistan due to its proximity to Tibet, Kashmir, Himalayas, and Bay of Bengal. India at present uses the water of more than 220 rivers, some of its major rivers are Brahmaputra, Dahisar, Damodar, Ganga (with its tributaries) Ghaggar, Godavari, Gomti, Indus Basin (which includes Sutlej, Jhelum, Beas, Ravi and Chenab). Kaveri (with its main tributaries) Koyna, Krishna, Mandovi, Mhanadi, Mithi, Narmada, Oswiwara, Sabarmati, Tapti (with its main tributaries), Ulhas, Vashishti, Yamuna, and Zuari.
On the other hand, Pakistan has extremely limited water resources. Indus River, which is regarded the ‘life line of Pakistan, and its tributaries are probably the largest water source in this country, as around the two-thirds of water supplied for irrigation and in homes comes from the Indus and its associated rivers. However, in case India plans to curtail Pakistan’s water supply, the impact on its agriculture and economy would be thoroughly devastating - one could possibly guess.
If the international community does not intervene, a new series of conflicts -Water Wars - could starts in the coming years. That would once again change the course of subcontinent’s history. The only ray of hope, for seeking justice is through the legal battle, as New Delhi’s policy of spelling disaster in Pakistan is being pursued on the basis of the view that ‘Might is Right’.Ttechnical juggleries are being employed to justify its actions. In this way, it lays a death trap for Pakistan, yet raising false alarm that it is breeding terrorism in India.
IA. Pansohta, Nation (Islamabad), April 6, 2010, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/06-Apr-2010/Threat-of-Water-Wars
NATURAL SECURITY AND WATER
In one of my earlier commentaries for the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C., titled Water Security in Pakistan, I was able to get the attention of the water authorities in Pakistan by explaining to them the grim situation the country is facing with regard to this precious resource.
I wrote that “Islamabad, we have a problem!” Today I write to attract their attention by saying, “Islamabad, we need a solution!”
In the recently concluded ‘strategic dialogue’ between Pakistan and the United States, water issues did not get the prominence they deserved. Water became part of the energy dialogue in one of the second-day sessions, giving it less prominence than required.
Given the high population growth rate, growing poverty, religious militancy and natural disasters, it sometimes feels as if matters in Pakistan could not get worse. Pakistan is ranked 125 out of 163 countries in the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI).
The EPI focuses on two overarching environmental objectives: a) reducing environmental stresses to human health; and b) promoting ecosystem vitality and sound natural resource management.
Moreover, since Pakistan is primarily an agrarian country, water becomes the most important of all the natural resources to be secured and managed. Ironically, although the complex Punjab rivers and link canals system could very well be classified as one of the 20th century engineering wonders, today one is left wondering what good the engineering wonder has accomplished in a country where water resource management has failed for all intents and purposes.
To many, water security entails the idea of ‘water wars,’ which is a plausible scenario in the case of the waters shared by Pakistan and India. A good gauge of the trans-boundary significance of water is the dependency ratio, which is a measure of water resources originating outside the country.
Pakistan has a dependency ratio of 77 per cent, which is one of the highest in Asia. Therefore, we all hear about the classic, model treaty between India and Pakistan, called the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). So much has been said, written and discussed about the treaty that there might as well be another one by the name of Indus Water Treaty 2.
Since enough has been said about the trans-boundary water issue between India and Pakistan, I would briefly add that although the treaty is admired for withstanding wars and conflicts between the two countries, it has not been able to play any role in forestalling war. The mechanics of the treaty has survived so far, but the treaty itself has not been able to be part of a solution to animosities.
This is because the institutions, which deal with water and environment, do not work in tandem with the national security agencies. Quite recently, the water issue created friction between the two countries when after the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, Pakistani political commentators started accusing Indian officials of violating the Indus Waters Treaty, suggesting that water was the root cause of the Kashmir issue. Is this the case?
Another external water security issue is with Afghanistan. However, no signs of a serious conflict has arisen regarding the shared waters between the two militancy-infested countries, but the potential is always there. Therefore, as a matter of preventive diplomacy or maybe as a confidence-building measure, both countries should establish a joint multi-disciplinary scientific fact-finding working group to build a mutually agreed-upon hydrological knowledge base on the Kabul river basin.
It is suggested that the two countries should also establish a bilateral water resources commission to review and negotiate hydropower and agricultural development plans affecting the population of both nations. Negotiations are recommended to build a bilateral treaty between Afghanistan and Pakistan on the use and management of the Kabul river water resources. Existing frameworks such as the Economic Cooperation Organisation and the Regional Economic Cooperation Conference on Afghanistan should be used to include effective mechanisms on water-sharing ‘Natural security’ (natural resources plus national security) is an idea in its infancy. Water security is a subset of ‘natural security’. We are taking small steps to inform and advise the movers and shakers of society of the importance of natural security. However, it is clear that the time has come to move swiftly in the right direction and understand the consequences of not doing so.
Water security requires urgent attention. So far, water resource issues have not been adequately addressed, especially when the effects of climate change are growing with each passing day. In most cases, the problems caused by climate change have not been factored into analyses and policy formulation concerning water management. According to many experts, water and its availability and quality constitute the main pressures on societies that are witnessing the effects of climate change. Hence, it is necessary to improve our understanding of the problems involved so that effective action can be taken without delay.
In February 2009, at the launch of The World’s Water 2008-2009, Peter H.Gleick of the Pacific Institute with reference to water said that the least we can do is ‘educate’. This is the intention here.
The writer is working on a study titled ‘Water and Security in South Asia’ for the RAND Corporation in Washington, D.C.
Kashif Hasnie, Dawn (Islamabad), April 13, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/natural-security-and-water-340
WATERS DISPUTE
Politicians and Islamic outfits in Pakistan accuse India of stealing upstream Indus system waters, threatening Pakistan's very existence. More sober Pakistanis complain that numerous new Indian projects on the Jhelum and Chenab will create substantial live storage even in run-of-the-river hydel dams. This will enable India to drastically reduce flows to Pakistan during the crucial sowing season, something that actually happened for a couple of days when the Baglihar reservoir was filled by India after dam completion.
India accuses Pakistan of hysteria, saying there is really no issue since India has always observed the Indus Waters Treaty dividing the waters of the Indus and Punjab rivers between the two countries. Pakistan may suffer from water scarcity but so does India.
Inter-state fights over water in India are humungous -- Punjab vs Haryana, Karnataka vs Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh vs Maharashtra. Water raises passions, and farmers in all states claim they are being robbed of water, without going into the rather complex facts. Pakistan is no different, say Indian experts, so let's shrug aside Pakistani rhetoric.
What this debate misses is that dam-based canal irrigation is an obsolete, wasteful 19th century technology that cannot meet 21st century needs. It must be replaced by sprinkler and drip irrigation, distributed through pressurised plastic pipes. This approach has enabled Israel to irrigate the desert. It can enable India and Pakistan to triple the irrigated area with their existing water resources, escaping water scarcity. Drip and sprinkler irrigation systems are expensive. They use a lot of power for pumping. But they greatly improve yields too. Israel's agriculture is highly competitive.
Canals are hugely wasteful of both land and water, something well-captured in Tushaar Shah's book 'Taming the Anarchy'. Up to 7 per cent of the command area of a conventional irrigation project is taken up by canals, and this no longer makes sense when land is worth lakhs per acre. In the Narmada command area, farmers have refused to give up their land to build distributaries from the main Narmada canal, so only a small portion of the irrigation potential is actually used today.
Traditionally, the South Asian farmers have levelled their land and flooded it with irrigation water. Rice is typically grown in standing water. This entails enormous water losses through evaporation in canals and flooded fields. This mattered little in the 19th century when land and water were relatively abundant. It matters hugely today. Piped water greatly economises the use of both land and water.
Instead of canals, we can transport water through underground pipes that leave the land above free for cultivation. Indeed, the downhill flow of water through massive pipes can run turbines, generating electricity for pumping the water to the surface where required.
The canal system makes farmers prisoners of the water releases decided by canal headquarters. If canal water is released to a village section say once a month, farmers can grow only those crops suited to this irrigation schedule. This was acceptable in the 19th century when farms were large and grew the same crop, and technology and markets for unconventional crops were scarce.
But today farmers want to diversify into a wide diversity of crops, and for this they need water on demand. This is why they have gone in a huge way for tube well irrigation. This gives them water on demand, enabling them to grow what they like. India's green revolution was based overwhelmingly on tube well irrigation: the Bhakra Dam contributed hardly anything to it, save that Bhakra canal waters leaked into the ground and helped recharge underground aquifers. The same was true of the green revolution in Pakistan too.
This does not cease to make water an emotive issue. Punjab and Haryana fight bitterly over canal water although 80 per cent of their irrigation is based on tube wells. Punjab has refused to let the Sutlej-Yamuna Link be completed. Yet not even this has saved the state from water scarcity, since excessive tube well pumping is emptying aquifers. The same thing is happening in Punjab.
Gujarat has shown the way out of this water crisis. It has gone in a big way for drip and sprinkler irrigation. It has been rewarded with an astounding agricultural growth rate of 9 per cent despite being a semi-arid state. Jain Irrigation has become one of the biggest producers of drip and sprinkler equipment in the world, and other corporate rivals are coming up fast.
Like Gujarat, India and Pakistan need to replace canal-based irrigation with pipe-based irrigation. India has world-class technology and equipment that it can share with Pakistan. Such co-operation cannot end controversies over Indus water sharing. But it can take the sting out of them.
Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, News International (Rawalpindi), April 13, 2010, http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=234001
WAR OR PEACE ON THE INDUS?
Anyone foolish enough to write on war or peace in the Indus needs to first banish a set of immediate suspicions. I am neither Indian nor Pakistani. I am a South African who has worked on water issues in the subcontinent for 35 years and who has lived in Bangladesh (in the 1970s) and Delhi (in the 2000s). In 2006 I published, with fine Indian colleagues, an Oxford University Press book titled India's Water Economy: Facing a Turbulent Future and, with fine Pakistani colleagues, one titled Pakistan's Water Economy: Running Dry. I was the Senior Water Advisor for the World Bank who dealt with the appointment of the Neutral Expert on the Baglihar case. My last assignment at the World Bank was as Country Director for Brazil. I am now a mere university professor, and speak in the name of no one but myself. I have deep affection for the people of both India and Pakistan, and am dismayed by what I see as a looming train wreck on the Indus, with disastrous consequences for both countries. I will outline why there is no objective conflict of interests between the countries over the waters of the Indus Basin, make some observations of the need for a change in public discourse, and suggest how the drivers of the train can put on the brakes before it is too late. Is there an inherent conflict between India and Pakistan? The simple answer is no. The Indus Waters Treaty allocates the water of the three western rivers to Pakistan, but allows India to tap the considerable hydropower potential of the Chenab and Jhelum before the rivers enter Pakistan. The qualification is that this use of hydropower is not to affect either the quantity of water reaching Pakistan or to interfere with the natural timing of those flows. Since hydropower does not consume water, the only issue is timing. And timing is a very big issue, because agriculture in the Pakistani plains depends not only on how much water comes, but that it comes in critical periods during the planting season. The reality is that India could tap virtually all of the available power without negatively affecting the timing of flows to which Pakistan is entitled. Is the Indus Treaty a stable basis for cooperation? If Pakistan and India had normal, trustful relations, there would be a mutually-verified monitoring process which would assure that there is no change in the flows going into Pakistan. (In an even more ideal world, India could increase low-flows during the critical planting season, with significant benefit to Pakistani farmers and with very small impacts on power generation in India.) Because the relationship was not normal when the treaty was negotiated, Pakistan would agree only if limitations on India's capacity to manipulate the timing of flows was hardwired into the treaty. This was done by limiting the amount of "live storage" (the storage that matters for changing the timing of flows) in each and every hydropower dam that India would construct on the two rivers. While this made sense given knowledge in 1960, over time it became clear that this restriction gave rise to a major problem. The physical restrictions meant that gates for flushing silt out of the dams could not be built, thus ensuring that any dam in India would rapidly fill with the silt pouring off the young Himalayas. This was a critical issue at stake in the Baglihar case. Pakistan (reasonably) said that the gates being installed were in violation of the specifications of the treaty. India (equally reasonably) argued that it would be wrong to build a dam knowing it would soon fill with silt. The finding of the Neutral Expert was essentially a reinterpretation of the Treaty, saying that the physical limitations no longer made sense. While the finding was reasonable in the case of Baglihar, it left Pakistan without the mechanism - limited live storage - which was its only (albeit weak) protection against upstream manipulation of flows in India. This vulnerability was driven home when India chose to fill Baglihar exactly at the time when it would impose maximum harm on farmers in downstream Pakistan. If Baglihar was the only dam being built by India on the Chenab and Jhelum, this would be a limited problem. But following Baglihar is a veritable caravan of Indian projects - Kishanganga, Sawalkot, Pakuldul, Bursar, Dal Huste, Gyspa. The cumulative live storage will be large, giving India an unquestioned capacity to have major impact on the timing of flows into Pakistan. (Using Baglihar as a reference, simple back-of¬the-envelope calculations, suggest that once it has constructed all of the planned hydropower plants on the Chenab, India will have an ability to effect major damage on Pakistan. First, there is the one-time effect of filling the new dams. If done during the wet season this would have little effect on Pakistan. But if done during the critical low-flow period, there would be a large one-time effect (as was the case when India filled Baglihar). Second, there is the permanent threat which would be a consequence of substantial cumulative live storage which could store about one month's worth of low-season flow on the Chenab. If, God forbid, India so chose, it could use this cumulative live storage to impose major reductions on water availability in Pakistan during the critical planting season. Living in Delhi and working in both India and Pakistan, I was struck by a paradox. One country was a vigorous democracy, the other a military regime. But whereas an important part of the Pakistani press regularly reported India's views on the water issue in an objective way, the Indian press never did the same. I never saw a report which gave Indian readers a factual description of the enormous vulnerability of Pakistan, of the way in which India had socked it to Pakistan when filling Baglihar. How could this be, I asked? Because, a journalist colleague in Delhi told me, "when it comes to Kashmir - and the Indus Treaty is considered an integral part of Kashmir -- the ministry of external affairs instructs newspapers on what they can and cannot say, and often tells them explicitly what it is they are to say." This apparently remains the case. In the context of the recent talks between India and Pakistan I read, in Boston, the electronic reports on the disagreement about "the water issue" in The Times of India, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Economic Times. Taken together, these reports make astounding reading. Not only was the message the same in each case ("no real issue, just Pakistani shenanigans"), but the arguments were the same, the numbers were the same and the phrases were the same. And in all cases the source was "analysts" and "experts" --in not one case was the reader informed that this was reporting an official position of the Government of India. Equally depressing is my repeated experience - most recently at a major international meeting of strategic security institutions in Delhi - that even the most liberal and enlightened of Indian analysts seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the great vulnerability and legitimate concern of Pakistan. This is a very uneven playing field. The regional hegemon is the upper riparian and has all the cards in its hands. This asymmetry means that it is India that is driving the train, and that change must start in India. In my view, four things need to be done. First, there must be some courageous and open-minded Indians - in government or out - who will stand up and explain to the public why this is not just an issue for Pakistan, but why it is an existential issue for Pakistan. Second, there must be leadership from the Government of India. Here I am struck by the stark difference between the behaviour of India and that of its fellow BRIC - Brazil, the regional hegemon in Latin America. Brazil and Paraguay have a binding agreement on their rights and responsibilities on the massive Itaipu Binacional Hydropower Project. The proceeds, which are of enormous importance to small Paraguay, played a politicised, polemical anti-Brazilian part in the recent presidential election in Paraguay. Similarly, Brazil's and Bolivia's binding agreement on gas also became part of an anti-Brazil presidential campaign theme. The public and press in Brazil bayed for blood and insisted that Bolivia and Paraguay be made to pay. So what did President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva do? "Look," he said to his irate countrymen, "these are poor countries, and these are huge issues for them. They are our brothers. Yes, we are in our legal rights to be harsh with them, but we are going to show understanding and generosity, and so I am unilaterally doubling (in the case of Paraguay) and tripling (in the case of Bolivia) the payments we make to them. Brazil is a big country and a relatively rich one, so this will do a lot for them and won't harm us much." India could, and should, in my view, similarly make the effort to see it from its neighbour's point of view, and should show the generosity of spirit which is an integral part of being a truly great power and good neighbour. Third, this should translate into an invitation to Pakistan to explore ways in which the principles of the Indus Waters Treaty could be respected, while providing a win for Pakistan (assurance on their flows) and a win for India (reducing the chronic legal uncertainty which vexes every Indian project on the Chenab or Jhelum). With goodwill there are multiple ways in which the treaty could be maintained but reinterpreted so that both countries could win. Fourth, discussions on the Indus waters should be de-linked from both historic grievances and from the other Kashmir-related issues. Again, it is a sign of statesmanship, not weakness, to acknowledge the past and then move beyond it. This is personal for me, as someone of Irish origin. Conor Cruise O'Brien once remarked: "Santayana said that those who did not learn their history would be condemned to repeat it; in the case of Ireland we have learned our history so well that we are condemned to repeat it, again and again." And finally, as a South African I am acutely aware that Nelson Mandela, after 27 years in prison, chose not to settle scores but to look forward and construct a better future, for all the people of his country and mine. Who will be the Indian Mandela who will do this - for the benefit of Pakistanis and Indians - on the Indus?
John Briscoe, Frontier Post (Pehawar), April 18, 2010, http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ar&nid=255
INDUS TREATY: PAKISTAN’S OPTIONS 
It is believed that if India starts the construction of any dam or reservoir on the rivers flowing into Pakistan, the only remedy Pakistan has is to resort to dispute-resolution mechanisms under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Actually, Pakistan has the right to protest outside the IWT whenever it feels that the construction of a dam or reservoir by India will threaten its strategic interests.
The IWT consists of only 12 articles and eight annexes. There is no provision in the treaty which expressly ‘authorises’ India to construct a certain number of dams. Neither is there one that prohibits India from making dams beyond a certain number. Clearly, therefore, the number of dams that India wishes to construct on the western rivers is an issue outside the scope of the treaty.
This means that the decision of how many dams India will construct is a one taken by India unilaterally, outside the treaty, on the basis of political and strategic considerations, without consulting Pakistan. Once the decision to construct a dam or reservoir has been taken by India, the matter enters the framework of the treaty, which only provides technical specifications for building such a dam or reservoir.
The treaty is a regulatory framework giving technical specifications. It is confined to these technicalities and does not address the substantive decision of the number of dams that the Indian government may wish to construct.
Therefore, Pakistan is free to contest such a political decision of India without entering into the dispute-resolution mechanism of the treaty. Pakistan is entitled to launch a diplomatic offensive outside the treaty if it feels threatened due to the excessive construction of dams, reservoirs etc.
Pakistan is well within its rights to argue before the international community that the construction of too many reservoirs and dams on the western rivers by India constitutes the misuse of the treaty’s regulatory framework. Pakistan can raise this issue before any forum in the UN and take this issue to friends such as the US and the European Union. The IWT does not usurp or curtail the right of Pakistan to protest against the construction of too many dams by India.
So far, whenever Pakistan has tried to raise this issue outside the treaty, it has been advised to resort to the mechanism of the treaty. This puts Pakistan on the back foot because the mechanism does not offer the redressal that Pakistan seeks since the neutral expert has no legal competence to stop construction or direct the dismantling of the constructed work.
Whenever India starts construction on the western rivers, Pakistan, instead of protesting diplomatically, invokes the jurisdiction of the neutral expert. After months of neutral experts taking cognisance of the matter, no positive outcome is registered for Pakistan during which time the construction is completed. Pakistan in that sense has ‘lost’ cases before the neutral experts, whereas the fact is that neutral experts never had the legal competence to grant victory to Pakistan.
In other words, Pakistani officials have been invoking the wrong forum. There was no need to resort to the dispute resolution mechanism under the treaty since the decision being contested — the construction of a dam — was taken outside the treaty mechanism itself. Only when Pakistan has reservations on the technical aspects of a dam’s construction should it invoke the IWT’s dispute-resolution mechanisms.
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Dawn (Islamabad), April 18, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/indus-treaty-pakistans-options-840
WATER ROW
Unless New Delhi and Islamabad handle the issue with care and within the ambit of the Indus Waters Treaty, the water dispute between Pakistan and India could further sour bilateral ties and hamper peace talks that are likely to be revived. The dispute has already triggered anger among farmers on this side of the border, and provided some groups an opportunity to fuel anti-India emotions. Unfortunately, Indians are doing little to allay Islamabad’s concerns regarding their plans to build several dams on the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. These dams are believed to have the potential to choke off water flows of Pakistani rivers. This attitude has pushed Pakistan to seek international arbitration against the construction of the Kishanganga Hydropower Project in violation of the treaty. Officially, Islamabad has never accused India of stealing its water. Yet it has time and again complained that India is not providing the information it is bound to supply under the treaty. Even the decision to seek international arbitration in this case has been taken after considerable delay to give the bilateral dispute-resolution mechanism a chance. The issue has been on the agenda of the Permanent Indus Commission for eight years.
Though India has the right to limited use of the rivers allotted to Pakistan for agricultural purposes and to build hydroelectric dams under the water pact, it is not allowed to obstruct the flow of rivers designated to Pakistan by storing or diverting water. India denies cutting off Pakistan’s water share. But, in this particular case, Pakistan feels that Indians are trying to divert Jhelum water for storage in Wullar lake. If that happens, it will destroy agriculture in central Punjab and jeopardise Pakistan’s food security. Additionally, the diversion of Jhelum water will reduce by 27 per cent the generation capacity of the under-construction 969MW Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project near Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir. There is a sense of frustration in Pakistan and a perception that India is usurping Pakistan’s waters. The Indian reluctance to share information about the planned water projects is not helping matters. What we need on the water issue is transparency.
Editorial, Dawn (Islamabad), May 4, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/water-row-450
THE WATER FACTOR
Water is likely to be the most divisive issue between India and Pakistan in the future. Or water could, with imagination and political will, become the basis for enduring bilateral cooperation. Addressing a gathering at a mosque in the Chowburji area of Lahore in April, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the head of the Jamaat-ut-Dawa (and founder of the Lashkar-e-Taiba), claimed the next war between India and Pakistan could be fought over water if India did not stop "water terrorism" by building tunnels and dams to turn Pakistan into a desert. Saeed's hysterical claims aside, at almost every official engagement with New Delhi in recent months, Pakistan has raised the issue of water, most recently in Thimphu at the Saarc summit.
The irony is that despite the many wars that India and Pakistan have fought over a variety of issues, water is the one area where the two countries had found accommodation through the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. The challenge for the two governments, therefore, is to now ensure that cooperation in this respect is not derailed. Rebuilding trust over the sharing of the Indus waters could even become the precursor for generating trust in other areas of conflict.
In fact, the "water wars rationale" forecasts war between countries "dependent upon a shared water resource if there is water scarcity, competitive use and the countries are enemies due to a wider conflict." India and Pakistan were, by this logic, prime candidates to go to war. What, then, explains the successful negotiations that translated into the Indus Water Treaty of 1960? As academic Undala Z Alam argues, India and Pakistan cooperated because it was "water-rational." "Cooperation was needed to safeguard the countries' long-term access to shared water," said Alam, who was given unique access to the World Bank's archives.
What explains this new shrill campaign? Firstly, Pakistan is facing the most severe water crisis in its history. Secondly, in the new Pakistani discourse inspired by military thinking, India's hypothetical plans to construct dams, despite their being within the ambit of the treaty, could potentially create the capability to choke water flow to Pakistan. Here, intentions are not a factor, but just the capability that India may possess in the future.
Thirdly, one episode over the filling of the Baglihar water reservoir by India and the alleged "delayed" release of water has been cited as an example of India's mala fide intentions. There are also Pakistani concerns about the Kishanganga project.
In any case, none of these issues calls for hysteria, but constructive engagement and bilateral dialogue within the scope of the Permanent Commission or outside it.
What is also clear is that while the Indus Water Treaty is still a vital document, it may be important to think of ways of harnessing the waters of the Indus Basin jointly for more optimal use of the resources, given new technology, better practices, greater scarcity, and lessons learnt from the past. These could be included though an additional protocol to the treaty.
In fact, Article VII of the Treaty on "Future Cooperation" leaves open the possibility of newer avenues of cooperation without the need for the signatories to renegotiate or abandon the treaty. Water is a common, increasingly scarce resource which needs to be shared for the mutual benefit.
We have given the world an example in the form of the Indus Water Treaty. The time is ripe to build on this cooperation.
(Professor Amitabh Mattoo is an eminent thinker and writer of India).
Amitabh Mattoo, News International (Rawalpindi), May 11, 2010, http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=238568
PAK-INDIA MOOT ON KISHENGANGA TODAY
India and Pakistan will discuss the issue of appointment of umpires for the Kishenganga hydel power project arbitration in Islamabad on Tuesday. Sources in the government said that India has sent a four-member team to Pakistan, comprising officials from the Water Resources Ministry and the Ministry of External Affairs.
The senior-most member of the team AK Bajaj, Chairman of the Central Water Commission. The others are India's Indus Commissioner G Ranganatha, his deputy Darpan Talwar and J N Singh, a Joint Secretary in the MEA.
Pakistan had invited India to discuss the issue of appointment of three neutral umpires. Earlier, India had invited Pakistan to hold consultations here on July 5 and 6 to decide on umpires bilaterally. But Pakistan suggested that the names of the umpires be exchanged between the missions of the two countries.
Last week, India once again invited Pakistan for consultations, saying it was ready to send its representatives to Islamabad to which the latter agreed. If the two countries fail to have a consensus on umpires, then this will be decided by a draw of lots by the World Bank, the United Nations and some other institutions.
The two countries, which have agreed on international arbitration, had been having a dispute over how to finalise the three neutral umpires who will supervise the legal battle between the two sides in a court of arbitration. The two countries have already nominated two legal experts (arbitrators) each to contest their case over the power project being built in Jammu and Kashmir.
Accusing India of breaching the provisions of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty by diverting the water of the Jhelum tributary for its Kishenganga hydel power project, Pakistan sought international arbitration in May this year after the two countries failed to resolve the issue bilaterally for over two decades.
Under the provisions of the treaty, the two countries will have to appoint three umpires, including a Chairman, before the court of arbitration is set up to decide on the issue.
Post (Lahore), July 13, 2010, http://www.thepost.com.pk/Fb_ShortNewsT.aspx?fbshortid=5385&fcatid=14&fstat us=Current&bcatid=14&bstatus=Current
PAKISTAN AND INDIA AGREE TO INSTALL TELEMETRYSYSTEM
Pakistan and India agreed in principle on Thursday to put in place a telemetry system on the Indus to record and transfer real-time data for the benefit of both countries.
The agreement was reached between Indus water commissioners of the two countries on the first day of their two-day meeting after the Indians “conceded to the utility” of the telemetry system in removing the confusion over water flow.
However, the visiting delegates maintained that they had to take Indian states (provinces) on board because they controlled water flows and would be providing space for installation of the equipment. The funds needed for installation and running the system was also a matter that would be decided in consultation with the states.
At a media briefing with his Pakistani counterpart Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Indian Commissioner Aranga Nathan confirmed that the agreement had been reached and promised to take up the matter with the governments of different Indian states where the system could be installed.
According to insiders, both sides also agreed to jointly inspect the flood embankment of River Ravi.
India built a number of embankments on Ravi in the year 2001 and Pakistan has since been asking it for permission to inspect them.
Instead of agreeing to inspection, India alleged that Pakistan had also built such structures and sought to inspect them.
The dates for joint inspection would be decided through correspondence.
The third issue that came under discussion was about pollution of rivers on both sides, especially in lower riparian Pakistan.
The two commissioners agreed that as trustees of waters they must also start talks about the pollution.
Pakistan raised the issue of India’s Hadiyara drain that flows near Lahore and brings the industrial waste to Pakistan and pollutes Ravi. The issue of Baramulla waste polluting Jhelum river was also brought to the notice of the Indian side.
The Indian officials said that Pakistan’s Kasur drain was causing the same damage on their side. The two sides agreed to look into each other’s complaints and suggest remedial measures.
Pakistani officials told the visitors that India had not yet responded to technical concerns over different projects which India was building on Pakistani rivers.
The Indian side said it would be sending its response to Pakistani objections on the Nimo Bazgo Dam “within days”.
Pakistan is of the view that Nimo Bazgo Dam and Chutak Power Plant on Indus River would block over 35,000 cusecs and badly hit the river hydrology.
The Indian side agreed to quicken the process.
Dawn (Islamabad), July 22, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/44-india-pakistan-to-inspect-ravi-dams-jamaat-shah-fa-02?pageDesign=mobile_detail
PAKISTAN-INDIA WATER TALKS CONCLUDE
The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) commissioners of India and Pakistan, Aranga Nathan and Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, held their second round of talks here on Friday, DawnNews reported.
In today's meeting, both sides agreed to jointly inspect the flood embankment of River Ravi.
The commissioners had a five-point agenda for the meeting and discussed a formula for water-sharing, sources said.
Both sides emphasised on continuing dialogue in order to resolve issues.
Speaking to media representatives after the second round of talks, Aranga Nathan said the dialogue took place in a congenial atmosphere.
Earlier, during Thursday’s talks, Pakistan and India agreed in principle to put in place a telemetry system on the Indus to record and transfer real-time data for the benefit of both countries.
The agreement was reached on the first day of their two-day meeting after the Indians “conceded to the utility” of the telemetry system in removing the confusion over water flow.
Dawn (Islamabad), July 23, 2010,
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content¬
library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-pak-india-talks-qs-05
PAKISTAN INITIATES PROCESS TO RESOLVE KISHANGANGA ISSUE WITH INDIA
Pakistan has instituted proceedings in the International Court of Arbitration to resolve the issue of the Kishanganga dam, which India is building on the Neelum river in Jammu and Kashmir, a federal minister has said.
Water and Power Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf made the remarks in the National Assembly or lower house of parliament on Friday.
He said the court is likely to take up the matter soon. India had addressed Pakistan's concerns on a parapet of the Nimmo Bazgo hydroelectric project on the Indus river but concerns relating to pondage, spillway and power intake are yet to be resolved, he said.
Issues involving the construction of the Uri-II hydroelectric plant by India on the Jhelum river and the Chutak hydroelectric plant on a tributary of the Indus too have been resolved by the Permanent Indus Waters Commission, Ashraf said. …
Times of India (New Dehli), October 9, 2010. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pakistan-initiates-process-to-resolve-Kishanganga-issue-with-India/articleshow/6718828.cms
ACCORD ON ROADMAP TO SETTLE PAK-INDIA WATER DISPUTE
India and Pakistan agreed on Wednesday on a “roadmap for resolving water disputes” and decided to hold two additional meetings, besides a routine meeting due in May, over the next six months.
On the last day of a five-day visit, a three-member Indian delegation yielded to a Pakistani demand that all “water disputes must be resolved with an agreed timeframe” because their lingering would create problems for both countries.
Pakistan’s Indus Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said the two sides had decided to hold one of the additional meetings by the end of March and the other by the end of June to expedite the pace of dispute resolution.
“The decision is the biggest achievement made during five days of deliberations,” he told Dawn.
Pakistan expressed concern over dwindling water supplies in western rivers which were given to Pakistan as a replacement for eastern rivers. Pakistan is supposed to transfer western water to its eastern part.
Shah said the Indians were told that a reduction in supplies was jeopardising the water transfer operation which should be allowed to happen.
Pakistan called for an effective flow of information as required under the Indus Basin Water Treaty and said that any obstruction in this regard would create problems for implementing the treaty.
Shah said the Indian delegation had agreed that settlement of all water disputes must be time-bound because open-ended talks were counter¬productive and bred confusion and frustration.
The Indus treaty protects rights of both the upper (India) and lower riparian (Pakistan) states. The two countries needed to stick to their parts of implementation, Mr Shah said, adding that Pakistan had also asked India to take steps if deforestation and environmental impact affected river flows on its side. Talking to reporters at the Lahore airport before leaving for home, Auranga Nathan, India’s Indus Commissioner, rejected a perception that the water issue could trigger a war between Pakistan and India.
“After all the two countries have signed an international treaty which includes elaborate dispute resolution mechanism. They not only committed to the treaty provisions but also regularly invoke different provisions to resolve disputes. Under such circumstances, there was hardly any chance of war between Pakistan and India on water issues,” he said.
Nathan termed his visit a success and reiterated that India was committed to the treaty and ready to resolve all disputes in accordance with the Indus Basin Water Treaty.
The current water reduction, he said, was result of weather variations rather than any activity on the Indian side of the border.
Dawn (Islamabad), October 11, 2010, http://www.dawn.com.pk/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/06-agreement-on-roadmap-to-settle-pakindia-water-dispute¬120-r
PAKISTAN: NATURE OF WATER CRISIS AND A POTENTIAL WAY OUT –1
A. Nature of Water Crisis: Water crisis is a term that refers to the scarcity and quality of available water resources relative to human demand. However, nature of crisis can change from one context to other. In global context, according to Wikipedia, the following symptoms are reported for water crisis:
  Inadequate access to drinking water for 1.1 billion people;
  Inadequate access to water for sanitation and wastewater disposal for 2.5 billion people;
  Groundwater excessive use leading diminished agricultural yields;
  Overuse and pollution of water resources harming biodiversity; and
  Regional conflict over scarce water resources sometime resulting into warfare.

Internationally, an indicator is devised to see if a certain country can be classified as water stressed or water scarce country to determine the emerging seriousness of water crisis. This indicator is generally termed as quantity of water available per year per person. If this per capita annual water availability in a country ranges between 1000-2000 m3, this status is said to be water stressed and if this amount of water drops below 1000 m3, the locality in focus is considered to be facing water scarcity situation.
As far as water availability per capita per year is concerned, sources like Amin Dadbhoy reports huge water distribution distortions in global context. For example, on one hand there those where water scarcity is too acute like Kuwait, Ghaza and UAE where annual per capita water availability is around 10 m3, 52 m3 and 58 m3, respectively. Opposite to such water poor countries, there are some water rich countries, where annual per capita water availability is very high, for example: French Guiana (812,121 m3), Iceland (609, 319 m3), Guyana (316,689 m3), Surinam (292, 566 m3), Congo (275,679, m3), Canada (94,353 m3) and New Zealand (86,554 m3).
The reported uneven water availability results because of the nature of regions. The ongoing climatic changes, it is predicted that humid regions will receive even more rain and arid and semi arid zones may get lesser and erratic rains in the future. According to an estimate, climatic change may cause another 20 % water scarcity in drought-prone areas. Because of the population growth and climatic changes, water crisis in many non-humid regions will aggravate.
In case of Pakistan, water crisis is much more complex and multi-facet phenomenon. For example, per capita water availability that was 5, 300 m3 in 1951 is expected to drop to 850 m3 in 2013. This is mainly because of the population growth from 34 million in 1951 to 207 million projected in 2013. If population increase in 62 years is six times, the corresponding decrease in per capita water availability is a natural outcome as presented in Table 1.

Table 1:  Past, present and future water availability per capita per year in Pakistan
This reported water scarcity becomes even more serious concern when we look at the degree of control of water sources and percentage of water used in Pakistani context. As presented in Figure 1, the percentage of water originating outside of Pakistan’s territory is 75% or more. When viewed this status in a very hostile environment, this complication becomes even more complex. Added to this very low degree of control, this water crisis takes another boost when we look at water exploitation index.  As shown in Figure2, Pakistan’s use of water as % of total renewable water resources, it is around 75 % plus. This high water exploitation index puts Pakistan in a category of severe water stressed situation.

Figure 2: Water stress status in Asia-Pacific
In addition to the above referred indicator of water availability per capita per year, those countries where overwhelmingly water consuming sub-sector is agriculture, there is need to consider annual irrigation water required or needed versus that is available. In the context of South Asian sub-continent, agriculture sector consumes 99%, 97%, 92% and 86% of total water available in Nepal, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, respectively. Perhaps per capita water available may have to be complemented with additional indicators to identify the real nature of prevailing water crisis in this region.
For Pakistan, therefore, it is important that we also look at the availability of water for irrigation. We had 9.2 million hectares irrigated land in 1950-53 which has gone up to 18.02 million hectares in 2000 -03; an increase of almost 100 % over a period of 50 years. As shown in Table 2, there has been an increase in water diversions to canals at different stages but not in the same proportion as horizontal expansion in irrigated land.
Table 2. Historical Canal Water Diversions in the Indus Basin of Pakistan
Key Influences Period Canal Diversions MAF / (billion m3)
Kharif Rabi Annual
Pre – Partition 1940-1947 47.6/ (58.5) 20.2/ (24.9) 67.8/ (83.4)
Partition 1947-1948 46.3/ (57.0) 22.4/ (27.6) 68.8/ (84.6)
Dispute 1948-1960 51.5/ (63.4) 24.7/ (30.4) 76.3/ (93.8)
Pre – Mangla 1960-1967 60.3/ (74.2) 27.6/ (34.0) 88.0 / (108.2)
Post – Mangla 1967-1975 65.3/ (80.3) 30.2 (37.1) 95.5 (117.4)
Post – Tarbela 1975-1980 68.1/ (83.7) 38.2/ (47.0) 106.3 / (130.7)
Post – Tarbela 1980-1985 68.4/ (84.1) 37.3/ (45.9) 105.7 (130.0)
Post – Tarbela 1985-1990 66.3/ (81.6) 37.7/ (46.4) 104.1/ (128.0)
Post – Tarbela 1990-1995 66.3/ (81.5) 38.5/ (47.3) 104.7/ (128.8)
Post – Tarbela 1975-1995 67.2 (82.7) 38.0 (46.7) 105.2/ (129.4)

Data Source: Water Resources Management Directorate, WAPDA.
Based on meteorological data from 18 stations country-wide, annual potential evapo-transpiration varies from 1.20 m in Muree to 2.0 m in Jackababad. Similar estimates of irrigation requirements are made for each province of Pakistan. When we compare these annual irrigation requirements, based on areas irrigated, we observe, as shown in Table 3, another dimension of the water crisis. Since water use in agriculture sector in Pakistan is around 97%, the nature of water crisis becomes very critical for food security and livelihood of the people. If one province that the dominant source of agricultural production, overall water deficit per unit area irrigated is going to keep productivity down and consequently food security at risk.
Table 3. Comparison of Surface water allocations and Water Requirements among four Provinces of Pakistan
Description Punjab Sind NWFP Baluchistan
Annual Irrigation  Requirements (m) 1.26 1.34 1.16 1.19
Annual Water Allocation as per 1991 Accord in BCM (MAF) 68.81 (55.94) 59.98 (48.76) 10. 80 (8.78) 4.76 (3.87)
Canal Irrigated  Areas (million hectares) in 2000-03 11.04 1.96 0.77 0.55

Annual water available per unit area irrigated (m) 0.62 3.06 1.40 0.87
Deficit (-) or Surplus (+) in m/ha -0.64 + 1.72 + 0.24 -0.32

Punjab has canal irrigated area about 11.04 million hectares which constitute 77 % of the entire country. Almost same ratio holds for the cropped areas that are irrigated exclusively either by tube-wells or wells. Shortage of more than half of irrigation water required has caused deficit irrigation causing productivity concerns. Now, this crisis is not brought either by nature nor by India; it is home-made and we have no option except to find ways and means to face it off.
Because of sever water shortages as presented above; tube-well irrigation got an exponential growth over a period of 50 years. Recent data suggest that over 1.2 million tube-wells are installed in the country and more than one million these tube-wells are pumping about 35 MAF of groundwater only in Punjab  to irrigate 7.17 million hectares conjunctively with canals and 2.74 million hectares exclusively by the tube-wells. Without getting into arguments and counter-arguments, this is clear and solid ground reality that there is huge water crisis in the food granary of Pakistan. It is interesting to note that 71.1% irrigated area of Punjab receives either exclusive tube-well water or conjunctively surface and ground water are being used. In contrast to Punjab, the share of tube-well irrigation in other provinces is almost insignificant.
On one hand, dependence on groundwater in Punjab is a blessing as quantity being used is almost three times that of surface water storage that Pakistan has built. Moreover, this explosion of pumping technology helped to control the twin menace of water-logging and salinity in this region. Imagine a possible severity of water crisis in a scenario where there would have been no use of groundwater at all. It would have definitely flabbergasting and horrifying outcome.
On the other hand, this practice of delaying its fatal impact has put the entire sustainability of irrigated of Punjab at risk. In an insane absence of institutional support system for groundwater management and due to shortage of canal water, farmers of Punjab are forced to use groundwater where almost two-third tube-wells are pumping sodic water for irrigation. As farmers are left on their own to decide about installation of tube-wells for groundwater extraction, they can only avoid pumping brackish water that gives tastes of excessive salinity but sodic/alkaline waters are, usually, assumed to be alright. This is why that more two-third tube-wells are adding slow poison to irrigated lands and this is becoming a significant factor for low yields in this region. This is another aspect of the seriousness of the emerging colossal water crisis.
At present, on one hand, our entire focus is confined to either blaming India for stealing water or debating on building Kala-Bagh Dam. Sure, there is a lot of truth in it but should we opt a destructive way of war where there will be no-winners or look at the options that are still available to overcome such crisis? Obviously, war is NOT an option, period.
Barrister Mansur Sarwar Khan, May 17, 2010, http://opinion-maker.org/2010/05/pakistan-nature-of-water-crisis/
WATER CRISIS IN PAKISTAN: A POTENTIALWAY OUT–2 
To seek a constructive way out, we need to ask an honest question from ourselves: At present, are we really in position to abrogate the Indus Water Treaty and get even a half way decent agreement from an extremely hostile neighbor? Of course, NOT! Since Indus river systems became a trans-boundary flow case after the partition in 1947, we could have convinced India and the international community at large to follow international laws regarding the established water rights for lower riparian. Instead, we were forced to negotiate and accept the partition of the Indus valley and Indus River waters as consequence. In other words, we agreed to the law of jungle, might is right, instead of taking right stand based on relevant international law of established water rights.
On the other hand, the entire canal irrigation system was designed, planned and implemented on a cardinal principle of equitable river water “disposal”/distribution per unit of irrigated area in the Indus Valley. Interestingly enough, in this intra-national context, our negotiations among four provinces revolved around the prevailing international water laws to satisfy established water rights because of inundation canals under lower riparian scenario. Although ground realities did change drastically after say independence, formation of one unit, Indus water treaty of 1960 and in spite of original design criteria opted for the use of 97% water use in irrigated agriculture; once an agreement signed with consensus, it should be accepted whole heartedly. As a matter of fact, we should still feel fortunate enough that all provinces signed on the Water Apportionment Accord in 1991. This brings us to ask one more honest question to ourselves: Without endangering the entire fabric of our federation, is there any possibility to get a better water apportionment accord among our four provinces? Answer is obvious; a big NO.
In spite of the above two soul -searching questions and candid answers, fact remains that both of these agreements had a huge impact on the on-going  water crisis. In both cases, as far as one can honestly feels, all stake-holders are sticking to these best possible agreements based on compromises made but only in letter sense. If these agreements are our best possible and last resort options, we can have way out only if we create conditions that make all stake¬holders to implement and follow these agreements both in letter and spirit.
For example, India is allowed to develop hydro-power potential by constructing dams as long as this power generation is made to stay within run-of- the-river principle. If India tries to deviate, we negotiate and once issue is established and bilateral negotiations fail, there is provision to seek arbitration from a neutral expert by using the good offices of the World Bank. Such an arbitration on Bughliar Dam is a recent case in point. Yes, there were few minor adjustments made but these alterations do not stop India to continue building dams across all three western rivers, allocated for supplying water to Pakistan, as long as these power generation facilities are kept confined to run-of-the-river flows.
In letter sense, India could do so. However, in doing so, India is developing a capacity and capability to flood Pakistan when there is least water required for crops and can create drought conditions when there is dire need for crops in the Indus Valley of Pakistan. Since we do not have observers stationed at all such dam and control sites, India can start storage when there is very little rain or glacier water available. A delay of well-coordinated water stoppage for even few weeks can ruin our agricultural economy to a greater extent.  Similarly, when there is not much need for crops, like wet season, a letter bound hostile India can flood the country to cause further damage to economy. This risk is further enhanced with acceptance of sluice gates to remove silt by the neutral expert appointed by the World Bank while arbitrating on Baglihar case. While doing all such manipulations, India will be hiding behind the letter sense of the Indus Water Treaty. But for Pakistan, water crisis will keep getting bad to worse as time progresses.
At the national level, we created problems for ourselves by ignoring the basic principle of design for equitable river water disposal; we generally term it irrigation, but started deviating to establish new rights for water use by increasing water allowance criterion followed in canal areas of the Pakistani Indus Valley.  Like the famous gold rush in the US, just to establish water rights, all provinces tried to increase water allowances either by developing new irrigation systems or widening the existing facilities by authorizing and pushing more water than the original design of conveyance systems. This has caused rivalries and hot exchanges among provinces and stakeholders. Also, different lobbies used such deviations to seek political benefits by justifying extra water needs over and above the original water allowances.
Because of an absence of proper water management essentially at secondary canal level, water crisis, particularly at the lower parts of these canals, is very evident. Coupled with flood irrigation, either irrigation by flooding basins or using old Punchoo system, water crisis keeps on increasing its intensity day by day. IRSA or no IRSA and telemetry system or no telemetry system; unless we decide to distribute water by going beyond letter sense and include the spirit of the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991, we do not see an end of this water crisis in Pakistan.
In order to face this emerging serious threat to our main living source, we may have to revisit our perceptions and self-righteous claims about Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991. If all stakeholders honestly decide to follow these agreements in letter and spirit, instead of getting stuck to the letter part only, there exists a real hope to face off such crisis effectively. On the other hand, if we keep playing drama of make-believe for appearing to be acting according to the letter part of such historic commitments, I am afraid that its potential consequences could be disastrous for all concerned. We all have to move beyond blowing fire to get our self-claimed and perceived rights and show courage to openly take steps to shoulder relevant responsibilities both in letter and spirit. With that kind of stated paradigm shift, I am sure that there is nothing that we cannot face and manage.
1 A. Context of Water Crisis: Before we deliberate on a potential way-out of this crisis, to bring about the above stated paradigm shift in our thinking patterns, the following realities have to be revisited:
  2. B. Issues Associated with Water Crisis: For finding a way-out from the emerging water crisis within the stated ground realities, it is important that we identify issues to be addressed.  These issues can be listed under different categories that include:
  The Red-Cliff boundary drawn to bring partition of 1947 was either absolutely blind toward hydraulic boundaries of the Indus River Basin, or, more bluntly, it was intentionally designed to partition this basin as a revenge of an imperial power fatally hurt.
  Indus Water Treaty of 1960 was not based on international laws applicable for trans-boundary river basins; it was a naked display of power by an upper riparian state that made a weaker lower riparian to swallow its pride and accept an unequal deal brokered by the World Bank.
  In spite of fact that the Indus Water Treaty was not just in view of the established water rights of the lower riparian state, Pakistan; a question still needs to be answered honestly: Considering our inherent weaknesses and constraints, what were the chances to get a better deal at that time and, for that matter, even now? Perhaps, none.
  Within Pakistan, Punjab being one of the upper riparian province, are there enough measures taken to satisfy Sindh, a lower riparian province, to deliver its legal share as per Water Apportionment Accord of 1991?
  Sindh being “upper riparian” for Baluchistan, are there required measures put in place to ensure “lower riparian” province of Baluchistan to get its due share as per Accord of 1991?
  Even in the presence of equitable river water distribution based on area irrigated in the Indus Valley, the Accord of 1991, on the contrary, is basically pegged in the historical water use under international water laws; is there any possibility for all four provinces to get a better deal either in 1991 or, for that matter, now? Perhaps, none. If so, what stops us to think about ways and means to make it work?
  With inundation canals replaced with modern weir-controlled canal irrigation systems with specified water allowances and after signing the Water Accord of 1991, why cannot we go back to original design criterion of equitable water distribution within each province to bring more areas under irrigation?
  Scarcity of water with ever exploding population and topped with climatic changes, supply and demand side water management are plausible options to be given due consideration. By blowing fire in the national context and threatening calls of water wars at regional level will not help to face off water crisis; innovative and rational approaches will – why cannot we divert our energies to do just that?
  Why cannot we take up a positive and thankful approach by reminding ourselves the following: With all our short-comings and blunders, we still are very lucky nation to have the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991 intact; why cannot we divert all our energies to make sure that these agreements are implemented in original letter and spirit? When we all know very well that nothing better can be achieved in the prevailing environment and as per the prevailing ground realities, why should we hurt our interests knowingly anymore?
  Management of population explosion in view of the free fall of per capita water availability of water;
  Additional Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) to ensure that the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 is implemented by India and Pakistan both in its original letter and spirit;
  Additional Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) to ensure that the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991 is followed by all four provinces of Pakistan in its true letter and spirit;
  Agreed and efficient supply side water management;
  Agreed and enforceable demand side water management;
  Creation of conducive environment for effective water conservation practices; and
  Getting rid of ineffective water governance.
2    C. Potential Way-out of Water Crisis: Of course, a potential way-out of the prevailing and more serious emerging water crises is to address all issues that cause misunderstandings, lack of transparency in water sharing, uneven water distribution, unreliability of quantity and quality of water, mismanagement on supply and demand sides, unfavorable conditions for water conservation and imperial style water governance in all relevant water-consuming sub-sectors.  Based on this assumption, different components of this potential way-out of water crisis are presented in the following sections:
3  D.1. Population Management as a Way-out for Stopping Drop in Water Availability per capita: It is interesting to note that everyone in Pakistan is concerned about the downward slide in the annual water availability per person but hardly have we even mentioned about the real cause of such steep drop say 5,300 m3 in 1950-53 to under the magic figure of 1000 m3 per capita per year at present; it is mainly due to the population explosion from 34 million in 1953 to 176 million in 2010. Let acknowledge this ground reality for a realistic appreciation of the water crisis we face and its nature.

We need to remind ourselves that we had 9.23 million hectare irrigated land in 1950-53 that went up almost 100 percent (18.02 million hectares) in 2000-03. However, our surface water diversions to the irrigated lands also increased from 83.4 BCM (67.64 MAF) to 129.4 BCM (104.95 MAF) during the same period. As this increase in water availability was less than the additional area brought under irrigation, annual water delivery depth per unit area dropped from 0.90 m to 0.72 m; these figures are significantly lower than required irrigation depths in each province as given in Table 3. Even with the introduction of tube-well technology since sixties, additional groundwater availability of about 50.29 BCM (40.8 MAF) has made this annual water depth available for the current area to 1.o m; a bit higher than before. In either case, we are not supplying adequate amount of water and we are forced to live with deficit irrigation phenomenon in this country. No wonder that our productivity of many crops is well below the one found on the other part of the Indus Basin under Indian control.
Based on the data presented above, it appears that main cause of steep drop in per capita water availability is less associated with the quantity of water available or being made available but more linked to the ongoing population explosion in Pakistan.  Unless we come up with measures to manage this explosion; there is no way to check this free fall in the annual water availability per capita.
D.2. Additional Confidence Building Measures regarding Indus Water Treaty: Why do we need additional measures to implement Indus Water Treaty when there are already institutional provision of Indus Water Commission and a built-in mechanism of a neutral arbitrator that can be sought through the good offices of the World Bank?  One obvious answer is that the existing provisions have not helped fully to remove mistrust developed between our two upper and lower riparian states. Main reason for such development is that most Pakistanis have come to believe that the existing mechanisms are not sufficient and additional confidence building measures are needed to ensure that the treaty is followed in its true letter and spirit.  In order to address this mistrust, according to a recent report by Sandeep Dikshit in an Indian newspaper, the Hindu, on 12th March 2010, the Government of Pakistan has proposed the following steps:
1 Construction of projects at three western rivers should be undertaken only after objections are amicably resolved;
2 Joint watershed management should be agreed;
3 Joint commission of environmental studies be established;
4 India should provide details of new project six months before commencement;
5 Diversions for storage and farm purposes be conveyed to Pakistan; and
6 India should also provide details about ancillary projects.

In response, India has expressed its concerns, as per the referred report, as under:
1 Pakistan needs to improve water management , and
2 The drop in flow is because of overall pattern of receding glaciers.

As far as the first point from the Indian side is concerned, water management improvements have remained main focus of Pakistan for last four decades or so. However, there is a lot of room for improvement and any good suggestions in this area should be seriously considered like more focus on watershed management is needed. For the second point, it makes Pakistan’s proposal even more meaningful that both countries should establish a joint commission for conducting environmental studies. If glaciers are receding, they must be receding because of excessive snow melt. As reason given for drop in flow is quite confusing, it will make sense and improve trust between the two states by conducting such environmental studies to let scientific data support or reject such ongoing arguments.
In parallel to the Indian concern about water management, the referred Dikshit’s report points to Pakistani concerns about deforestation and water pollution on Indian side. Moreover, Pakistani officials always have complaints about the non-responsiveness of Indian to their concerns raised in the Indus water Commission.
In the given context, if both countries wish to follow the Indus Water treaty of 1960 in its true letter and spirit, both must whole heartedly support to this proposition adding all necessary confidence building measures to ensure a transparent, honest and fair water transactions as agreed in the treaty. Asking to revisit this treaty would be opening a Pandora box that may become too difficult to manage. We need to keep reminding us that it took India and Pakistan more than 12 years to strike a deal; it is better for regional peace and security if our emphasis stays to demand all potential confidence building measures to ensure its implementation in intended real letter and spirit; if sanity prevails on both sides, it is a doable option whereas alternative of revisiting or reinventing this treaty is too dangerous even to contemplate for both states.
After the most recent, March 2010 to be precise, meeting of the Indus Basin Commission in Lahore, Pakistani representative has hinted about an agreement to install telemetry system to monitor water levels at different points along the western rivers of the Indus Basin. At this time, details of such agreement are not made public but this is an important and encouraging development. However, it remains to be seen if both parties have also agreed to jointly operate and maintain this monitoring technology or they plan to hire third party to operate and manage this appreciable confidence building measure. It goes without saying that if fool-proof arrangement is not agreed to operate and manage such system, mere installation of such devices will turn out to be a gimmick of window-dressing only. Both parties have to review the failure of telemetry systems that were installed in Pakistan and Egypt for flow monitoring and then decide a mutually satisfactory arrangement to make such technology based CBM to work and work to satisfy both sides.
As the remaining three western rivers of the Indus Basin are virtually life-lines for Pakistan and its people and hence this water issue has a real potential to turn this beautiful sub-continent into Hiroshima and Nagasaki as both India and Pakistan are nuclear states; any threat to very survival of even one state got seeds for total destruction all around. All sane elements of both countries sincerely cannot even start contemplating such dreadful scenario to emerge. So, if both countries wish to implement this Indus Water Treaty in its original letter and spirit, India and Pakistan should remain focused to keep on adding mutually verifiable CBMs to eliminate all sources of mistrust on trans-boundary water management agreement as agreed.
If there is no hidden agenda to hurt each other, let us think of stationing representatives from Pakistan at each dam site and control point as Egypt, being lower riparian country, has been allowed to do so for monitoring purposes. Without such institutional arrangement in place, even telemetry system is not going to deliver desired results.
However, Egypt, the lower riparian of the Nile River, is a dominating regional power whereas Pakistan does not enjoy such status. In the South Asian Sub-continent, India is dominating regional power as well as non-friendly upper riparian state too. This presents double jeopardy and extremely uneven playing field for Pakistan. Virtually, all cards are in the Indian hands and it is playing these cards blatantly.
By allowing India to have sluice gates for the removal of silt, a virtual reinterpretation of the Indus Water Treaty by a “neutral arbitrator” in case of Baglihar Dam, a devastating precedent has been set, without assigning pre¬conditions to safe guard original spirit of the treaty to ensure water quantity and timing, to make an already bad situation even worse.  Like the recent filling of Baglihar Dam at a time when river flow is too low and it is also a critical time when crops are planted on Pakistani side, it does not require rocket-science to foresee what the others dozens of planned dams can do to Pakistan and its main economy of agriculture.
Needless to say that water is not just an ordinary issue for Pakistan, it is the only lifeline for its survival; its existence depends upon the implementation of the Indus Water Treaty not according to mere letter sense but according to its real spirit. Obviously, Pakistan would like this treaty to address  all possible hindrances and potential manipulations in terms of quantity and timing of all allocated flows from the three western rivers to its territory.
In such a stated scenario, there is real potential for getting things out of control for both nuclear states.  People from both sides have to realize the potential dangers and force their decision-makers to stop playing games with the survival of more than one billion people of India and Pakistan and start devising solid confidence building measures to calm this emotive and combustible situation down. Being India in the driving seat, it has all levers of control to avoid a train-wreck on the Indus as Professor John Briscoe has cautioned.
Barrister Mansur Sarwar Khan, May 20, 2010, http://opinion-maker.org/2010/05/water-crisis-in-pakistan-a-potential-way-out¬%E2%80%93-part-ii/
PART II INTER-PROVINCE WATER ISSUES 
PAKISTAN: WATER CRISIS AND A POTENTIAL WAY OUT –3 
D.3. Additional Confidence Building Measures for Implementing Water Apportionment Accord of 1991: What a strange irony of fate that the measures that we demand from India as lower riparian country, at national front, all stake-holders are hesitant to practice. As a matter of fact, Accord of 1991 provides unique opportunity and challenges all national stakeholders to demonstrate that they are capable of thinking creatively for coming up with new and effective confidence building measures on their own. At the next step, they should be courageous enough to put in place and implement all such new confidence building measures to eliminate fears and reservations regarding water distribution among the four units of Pakistan to end the ongoing blame game against each other.
At national level, Punjab being an upper riparian entity for Sindh and relatively dominant province of Pakistan, it replaces India in the local context while taking driving seat to operate water train with most control in its hands. Here is litmus test for Punjab to set a good example by avoiding train wreck as stated before.  What Professor John Roscoe proposed to India as a dominant upper riparian state while explaining feelings in Pakistan, I repeat the same, with appropriate alterations, to the People of Punjab that there must be some courageous and open-minded of Punjabis – in government or out – who will stand up and explain to the public why this (Water) is not just an issue for Sind, but why it is an existential issue for Sind. Similar statement goes for the people of Sind when their role as upper riparian entity is considered for some parts of Baluchistan. Perhaps this could help to create conducive environment for rational discussion among all concerned.
To be fair with all stakeholders in Pakistan, water is equally a matter of existential issue for Punjab too. As a matter of fact, such desperation for water by all concerned stakeholders in Pakistan could be made a positive factor to understand concerns and reactions from the lower riparian provinces.  However, history does not support this positive approach. Instead, narrow but emotional, self-serving alternatives are being cashed in to promote parochialism for political gains. However, such self-destructive politicization of technical issues of water acquisition and distribution has not helped at all in facing water crisis and if we continue to follow the same irrational path in the future, I am afraid that we will be playing in the hands of those people who wish that Pakistan, California of Asia, to be converted into Somalia of Africa. If that happens, we will not be able to blame only outsiders as we keeping on claiming more and more, even un due, rights but always refuse to shoulder corresponding responsibilities for averting such water crisis.
`As stated before, Water Apportionment Accord of 1991is a great achievement in securing consensus among four provinces of Pakistan where discard is a common phenomenon but accord is an unheard commodity. This was based on brute give and take and hence this consensus based agreement must be adhered and strengthened as a way out to plan and implement water projects as per allocated water resources for each province.
On one hand, there are people in Sindh who cry foul over this agreement and claim that Punjab took undue share of Indus water under this agreement. On the other hand people in Punjab have their own grievances. For many Punjabis, in the Indus Valley, where, as per accepted and implemented principle of basic design for its irrigation system, water must have to be distributed equitably based on area irrigated; is it fair that with 75.5% of total irrigated area of Pakistan in 1990-93, Punjab only gets 47.67% of total water allocation? This is especially causing severe heart-burning when Punjabis see that Sindh got only 15.5 %of total irrigated area at time of this Accord but it received 41.55% of total water allocation from the Indus River System. In their view, as agriculture sector was using 97% of total water available, this operational rule must have been followed instead of historic claims which lost relevance with the establishment of modern weir-controlled canals designed for equitable water distribution based on area irrigated instead of inundation canals of the past and then partitioning of the Indus Valley and singing of Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan changed all previous precedents.  Had the water allocations for 97% amount been made equitably based on area irrigated and remaining for remaining 3% amount on population basis, it would have been an agreement based on fairness.
However, above stated thoughts are either suppressed feelings in view of the potential threats to the federation of Pakistan or just after thoughts as water crisis keeps becoming alarming every day. As Punjab signed this Accord, as a law abiding people of Pakistan, such after thoughts are alright to demonstrate the extent of compromise and sacrifice made by the majority group for minority group of one country, no second thoughts be allowed to unsettle an already settled issue on consensus basis. As a matter of fact, we should remind ourselves that a consensus building process always requires some give and take and politically sharp people with proper home-work usually extract maximum benefits.
For Sindh, securing more than fair share based on consensus in the emerging scenario of severe water scarcity is a monumental success. At present, instead of crying foul to claim more, it would make much more sense if they invest their extra efforts for devising and implementing credible confidence measures to have their share of water distributed as per the Accord of 1991.
In line with similar argument, Baluchistan should be given the same right to have all such CBMs put in place in Sindh for getting their agreed water share as Sindh wishes to have such measures to get its due share from Punjab and Khyber -Pakhtunkhwa. Some arrangements are already put in place but either they are not very effective or their functionality is questionable.
For example, as informed by a former irrigation secretary of Punjab, Sindh has its representatives appointed at critical control points of Indus River System to monitor actual water distribution as it happens. I am sure that such arrangement must have been on reciprocal basis. My proposal will be that we spend less time on criticizing a well-intended arrangement but invest more time and efforts to find root-causes and suggest additional adjustments or changes to make the existing arrangement as an excellent CBM.
Other case in view is the expensive telemetry system that has been installed to provide real time flow data at critical control points along the Indus River System. Only thing functional in this context is the ongoing blame game and not the telemetry system. Why did all investment go waste without producing intended positive results? No neutral or local entity has been made to study the failure of this excellent real-time monitoring system. My proposal would be that we set up a time-bound independent judicial commission or ask International Water Management Institute to study its real causes and suggest ways and means to make it work as per the satisfaction of all stakeholders.
IRSA, Indus River System Authority, is itself an excellent CBM between beneficiaries as far as this arrangement for water distribution is concerned. As compared to the Indus Water Commission, IRSA is much more effective in allocating water among all four contending provinces. In a natural environment of smaller provinces versus Punjab phenomenon, Mushraf put a Sindh based federal representative to the four members from all four provinces. In Punjab, such arrangement is perceived to be unfair for a province that produces almost 80% of granary of Pakistan.
For any arrangement to succeed and be sustainable, it has to be fair for all. In this context, a third party should be hired to study about the weaknesses of IRSA and propose measures that make this body a fair institution instead of a sort of inter-provincial semi-political game club where all dices are loaded against one province only. As cliché goes, only fair games produce fair results; let us ensure a fair and honest game for the sake of all concerned for all the times. If we wish to have non-controversial institutions, let there be more honest and transparent efforts be invested to make IRSA itself a confidence building measure for all four provinces.
In view of disharmony and discontent over water distribution, we have a long way to go before getting a satisfactory and functional system by putting all intrusive safe-guards in place at national level. If we manage to do so, our success at home will provide a clue to demand similar measures at the regional level under Indus water Treaty. In other words, if we are not fair and transparent in our dealing within one country, how can we demand a fair and transparent implementation of the Treaty from a not-so-friendly upper riparian and regional power that holds all the cards in the given context?
D.4. Agreed and Efficient Supply Side Water management: International literature provides the following definition of Supply-Side Water management:
“Supply side management means developing new water sources, building additional water storage facilities, diverting water from one basin to another, or treating water that might not otherwise be potable
(e.g. desalinization)”. Perhaps Pakistan is one country where surface and groundwater infrastructure is well developed except for developing storage facilities to tackle seasonal excessive unevenness in river flows and institutional arrangements for proper surface and groundwater management. At present, Pakistan is utilizing almost 75 % of renewable water resources; an indicator of severe water stress situation compared to many other arid and semi-arid countries.
According to some reports, total groundwater potential of Pakistan is around 66.8 MAF (82.4 BCM). At a time when total tube-wells installed were 575, 197, it was estimated that about 62 % of total potential was being exploited. With tube-well population getting almost doubled, the residual potential for groundwater extraction is hardly of any significance; rather, it is possible that many areas have already started over-extraction of groundwater causing groundwater mining as a common practice.
Like in many relatively more developed countries, we can treat wastewater (sewage plus industrial wastewater) for its reuse in agriculture and/forestry. Based on an estimate of wastewater from important cities of Pakistan, current quantity generated is about 2.3 BCM. At present, only one percent is treated and the rest is either used for growing vegetables within peri¬urban areas and/or disposed off into the adjacent rivers and canals. Either case, such practice is a growing health hazard. Although the current status of wastewater is not that huge when we compare it with surface and groundwater availability but it is large enough to get treated and used for plantation like promoting forestry in this country.
Another source worth considering is the rain water harvesting. Reports suggest that Pakistan has total potential of rain water harvesting as 8.5 BCM
(6.9 MAF) but not more than 0. 0.12 BCM (0.1 MAF) is being availed at this time. Main source for rainwater harvesting being used in Pakistan is mainly small and mini dams. Only in Pothwar area, there is a potential of 400 small dams and around 8000 mini dams. At present, however, only 30 small dams and 405 mini dams are built in this area.  As construction of such small and mini dams are mostly built for meeting local water needs, they are not controversial and water resource development using these small and/mini dams can be pursued without going through lot many socio-political road blocks.
However, the most significant contributor towards finding a way-out for meeting water crisis in country is increasing water storage capacity at a very fast track. However, we as a nation are in bind: On one hand, without building new dams for storing Indus River supplies, we have no future for our agriculture based economy; and on the other hand, without securing consensus among all four provinces for building new dams, we fear to run a risk for endangering our federation of four provinces. Parallel to this statement, I just cannot stop myself saying that not trying to find alternatives and creative ways and means to develop water storages is a definite sign of no future of any kind for Pakistan.
Of course, it is interesting report that Colorado River that has annual yield only 18.5 BCM (15 MAF), the storage along the river is around 80.2 BCM (65 MAF); almost five folds of the annual yield. Whereas our even divided Indus River System delivers around 179 BCM (145 MAF) to Pakistan and our water storage is hardly 15 BCM (12 MAF) with the same number of dams. Comparing with other similar international achievements, our performance is simply a huge embarrassment to say the least. Why cannot we have water reservoirs with total capacity of 900 BCM, according to the storage ratio of Colorado River, instead of just few peanuts of 15 BCM?
According to a cliché, I strongly believe: “Yes, we can.” Of course, I am not trying to suggest that finally there is a magical way-out for developing a consensus to build dams across Indus or its other main tributaries; no, under the prevailing political environment, it seems very difficult to achieve such breakthrough. However, things are not as gloomy as either they are painted or made to appear. Quite contrary, there are already two important provisions in place to facilitate a significant alternative way-out of the bind that we are in. Here, I am referring to the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991. If we decide not to build storages for irrigation across the Indus River or its main tributaries and devise a way-out based on these referred agreements; we have a win-win situation for all stakeholders in Pakistan.
As a clarification to above statement, I have only said that we should no more insist on building water storages for irrigation across the Indus River and/or its main tributaries. However, this does not stop us to have cascade of run-of-the-river hydro-power dams or even more than that hydraulic state to generate environmental-friendly and cheap electricity. With this rider, no sane person in the country will object as the energy dependency on imported fuel for producing many times more expensive power is suicidal for the economy in short as well as in longer run. As a matter fact, these alternatives were promoted to avoid or side-track efforts focused on building large multi¬purpose reservoirs across our main river system. Once the bone of contention is removed, developing cascades of run-of-the-river or even more than the run-of-the river dams should not cause any significant opposition anywhere in Pakistan.
More than hydro-power, however, people are worried to death by the emerging threat to its irrigated agriculture because of severe shortages of water when required most and flood possibility when demand is low. This can be done either by design as India is planning and constructing dozens of dams on all three western rivers allocated to Pakistan and ignoring watershed management within its controlled region or because of on-going climatic change globally.
Yes, we can and we must work out joint projects and studies for effective watershed management both under Indian-control as well as those watershed regions that lie within Pakistan. We should also conduct research studies jointly with India to assess impacts of climatic change on our river flows and implement correct and proactive measures to deal with such potential changes.  In addition, we must be more aggressive in making use of all mechanisms put in place under the Indus Water Treaty to ensure that the Treaty is implemented both in letter and spirit for the sake of people of this region.
However, a real success of such efforts will significantly depend on the conditions we create in Pakistan that help to handle all the emerging threats being made to disturb timing as well as river flows either by design through possible hostile actions of the upper riparian regional power or by the ongoing climatic changes. In this context, after forgoing option to build large reservoirs for irrigation on the Indus or its main tributaries, we are left with alternative of allowing each province of Pakistan take responsibility of storing its full or partial share as agreed in the Accord of 1991 off-channel storages.
In case of Khyber –Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, both sides of the Indus River and Pothwar region can provide sites for off-channel water storages. Since Sindh and Baluchistan do not have such convenient off-channel storage sites, either they can have their own but paid storages say in Gilgit-Baltistan or jointly, based on agreed terms of reference, with Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and/Punjab in Pothwar region. Because of the up-stream locations for off-channel sites, the present irrigation system can easily be connected with their respective canal system to augment flow during lean river flows. Since making use or storing water for its future use as per the Accord of 1991 is a provincial subject, provinces must be authorized to take necessary steps in this direction.
This proposed alternative is a significant component of the way-out from the emerging severe water crisis in the country. In a way, this presents a win-win situation to get of the hardened positions to a way forward as it caters to the most concerns of different stakeholders:
  Political stands of Sindh, Baluchistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provinces are accommodated by agreeing not to build multi¬purpose dams on the main Indus or its tributaries ;
  Such an alternative will allow to build cascades of hydro-power dams on all main channels to generate cheap and environment friendly electricity;
  Inter-provincial tensions over water distribution during high demand periods should dissipate as the due quantity within season will take precedent as compared to weekly water distributions are practiced at present;
  Off-channel water storages in Pothwar area should provide convenient capacity to store flood water, under both natural as well as man-made scenarios, from all three western rivers in general and from the Jhelum and  Chenab in particular; and
  This way-out helps to avoid blame game, right or wrong, against each other for water theft based on agreed water shares as defined by the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991.

Such alternative storages are must to make sure to face the emerging water crisis as well as trying to bypass the current standoff over building large dams on the Indus and its main tributaries. In view of the skewed nature of river flows, at present, our storage capacity is too limited. Based on 50% probability, flow data from 1937 to 67 reveal that almost 85% (144.5 BCM or 117 MAF) of total annual flow (173 BCM or140 MAF), occurs only during Kharif or summer season. In the absence of relevant data regarding the 2-3 months of Monsoon (15 June to 15 September), just to present a ground reality, we associate (based on IWMI’s data by Asim Rauf Khan, 1999) two-third or 96 BCM or 78 MAF flow during Monsoon.  Even if we deduct 15 BCM required to fill the existing three dams, we still need to handle the remaining 81 BCM (66 MAF). Where do we have capacity to make use of this huge quantity of water, almost 47% of total annual flow of the Indus System?
Here I expect many challenges like how come that annual flows below Kotri are around 43 BCM or 35 MAF only? Of course, it is debatable but the same way someone else can point out that why the annual average of the Indus flow from 1922 to 1961 is reported to be about 115 BCM (93 MAF) and then we downgraded this average to about 77 BCM (62.7 MAF) from 1985 to 1995? Did India divert the Indus flow to cause such dramatic drop? Is there some explanation and account for 50 to 100% more quantity that every province is trying to push through their respective canal systems (based on data collected on three distributaries in Punjab, Sindh and NWFP in 1985 by a team of Colorado State University)? Of course, all such figures do not match Up; either our flow measuring means are incorrect or there are some other hidden agendas that we do not understand. In any case, we need to move forward and let each province be responsible for its own due share to get out of this hypocritical game that takes us nowhere.
One question that I have never been able to understand is as follows: Why the Colorado River System that has annual yield around 15 MAF but its storage is almost 5 times of its annual flow but the Indus System with annual flow being 10 times more than that of the Colorado River is cursed to restrict its storage capacity to only 10% of its annual yield? After securing the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and Water Apportionment Accord of 1991, it does not make any sense to let the future of country be risked by not doing a doable as has been demonstrated along the Colorado River under similar semi-arid and arid environment and with same number of reservoirs. In view of the prevailing political logjam over constructing dams along our river system, it is proposed off-channel storages based on due shares of each province.
Do we have enough off-channel sites for such storages? Our hilly northern areas and plateau of Pothwar are ideally located options for such storages. Once people agree to seek off-channel alternative, surveys and studies can be conducted to find appropriate off-channel dam sites. In view of the topography of the referred areas, there will be no dearth of such sites. For example, as shown in Figure3, in Pothwar Area, some surveys have already been conducted to pin-point some locations that are suitable to store flows from the Indus River as well as Jhelum River. In case of Punjab, for explanation purposes only, 37% floodwater share amounts to 30 BCM or 24.5 MAF from all three western rivers.
Barrister Mansur Sarwar, May 27, 2010,
http://opinion-maker.org/2010/05/pakistan-water-crisis-and-a-potential-way-out¬
%E2%80%93-part-iii/
WATER AVAILABILITY PER PERSON DOWN BY 80.2PC
In a shocking development, the per capita water availability in Pakistan has drastically plummeted by 80.2 percent from 5260 cubic meter to 1038 cubic meter while the threshold value stands at 1000 cubic meter per capita.
“And in case the people at the helm of affair remain deaf and dump and continue to commit criminal negligence by not talking the required steps to increase the water availability, then in 2025, the per capita water availability world to reduce to just of 809 cubic meter,” divulges the latest documents of Wapda available with Pakistan Observer.
According to the details, in 1951, Pakistan’s population stood at 34 million with water availability of 5260 cubic meter per capita and in 2010 population has increased to 173 million owing to which the water availability has reduced to 1038 cubic meter.
In 2020, the population explosion, if not defused, the country will expose to 204 million population and the water availability will reduce to 877 cubic meter which will touch 809 cubic meter in 2025 when the population of the country has been estimated to be at 221 million.
The documents further disclose the alarming facts saying that Pakistan has lost the massive water storage capacity of 4.18 million acre feet (27 percent) because of the sedimentation and silt piled up in Terbela, Mangla dams and Chashma barrage.
Terbela dam was constructed in 1976 with storage capacity of 9.69 that has reduced by 2.92 MAF (30 percent) to 6.77 MAF.
Mangla Dam was erected in 1968 with storage capacity of 5.34 MAF has tumbled by 15 percent (0.80 MAF) to 4.54 MAF. Chashma barrage was built in 1971 with capacity to store water 0.72 MAF which has reduced to 0.26 MAF.
This means that the country’s water storage capacity has dwindled by
4.18 MAF (27 percent) from 15.75 MAF to 11.57 MAF. The loss of 4.18 MAF water is equal to almost the existing water storage capacity of Mangla dam. So with a view to recovering the lost storage capacity Pakistan needs at least to build a new dam equal to Mangla dam with current capacity.
Shah Hasan, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), June 25, 2010, http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=38183
GRAPPLING WITH WATER CRISIS
American experts trying to help Pakistan address water issues, warn that Pakistan faces a "raging water crisis". They point out that the country has some of the lowest per capita water availability in Asia, and in the world as a whole. And that reliance on a single river basin - they call it the most inefficient agricultural system in the world - climate change and lack of a coherent water policy means that as the country's population expands, its ability to feed it is shrinking.
The effect of increasing shortages is already manifesting itself in recurring inter-provincial disputes over water distribution and Pakistan's increasing complaints against India that as an upper riparian, it is taking more water from the river system than its fair share, as agreed under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.
It may come as a jolt to most Pakistanis to learn that the country has one of the most inefficient agricultural systems in the world. And that this system consumes between 90 and 95 percent of the available water, whereas the average use in developing countries is between 70-75 percent. "The remaining trickle", as the experts have described it, is used for drinking and sanitation purposes by the country's 180 million people. As a result, at least 55 million Pakistanis lack access to clean water, and as many as 30,000 people die each year in Karachi alone from using unsafe water. How badly mismanaged is the situation is plain from what the US Under Secretary for Democracy and Global affairs Maria Otero had to say on the subject. "Of the available water today," she averred, "40 percent of it gets used. The rest is wasted through seepage and other means." Then, there is the looming threat of overall availability getting drastically reduced because of climate change. A recent report in the Journal of Science says that the Indus could lose large amounts of its flow because of climate change.
A well thought-out conservation plan is clearly in order. One of the obvious things to do includes lining of water courses and canals to prevent seepage. Equally, if not more, important is the need to make changes in our farming community's archaic irrigation practices. The age-old flood irrigation system has to be replaced with such modern techniques as drip, sprinkler and spray irrigation, etc. In fact, a few progressive farmers are already moving in that direction. However, it is not uncommon for people to resist new techniques. The same should be expected in this case, too.
All the more so given that the changeover would require expenses. The government needs to both, provide incentives and educate the farmers, to adopt modern methods of irrigation. Furthermore, like many people, including the US experts, have suggested, Pakistan should consider increasing water charges to discourage wastage. This policy, together with awareness campaigns, should be applied to the urban areas as well to reduce wastage, and the resultant depletion of underground aquifers. And, of course, new reservoirs must be built to save water for effective and efficient use. A good water management policy is the need of the hour. Our policymakers must get rid of adhocism and begin planning for the longer-term future.
Editorial, Business Recorder (Islamabad), June 26, 2010, http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=1073912&currPageNo=1&query= &search=&term=&supDate=
RESOLUTION OF WATER ROW MATTER OF DAYS, NA TOLD
The government told the National Assembly on Friday that Punjab and Sindh chief ministers had assured Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at a meeting that a raging row over the share of the two provinces from the Indus river water system would be resolved “within days”.
Inter-Provincial Coordination Minister Pir Aftab Hussain Shah Jilani said both chief ministers had spoken of their desire to settle the matter amicably during the meeting on Thursday in Islamabad, where it was decided that a political delegation led by the Punjab irrigation minister would go to Sindh in this regard, to be followed by Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif. But the minister gave no dates for the visits.
“These issues are going to be resolved,” Pir Jilani said after Nawab Yousuf Talpur of the PPP used a point of order to voice his oft-repeated grouse that Sindh was not getting its due share under a 1991 accord on water sharing among the four provinces.
“They gave the assurance that within days this matter will be resolved,” the minister said of the response of Sharif and Sindh Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah to the dispute, which has sparked public protests in Sindh and angry arguments in the five-member regulatory Indus River System Authority (Irsa), which has one member each from the federal government and the four provinces.
Last week, Punjab’s member on an Irsa advisory committee walked out of the body reportedly voicing fears of an adverse decision and later Sindh’s member on Irsa asked his provincial government to withdraw him as a mark of protest at allegedly excess release of water made to Punjab by a majority vote. And then Balochistan, in apparent sympathy with Sindh, withdrew its Irsa member whose vote along with those of Punjab and NWFP made the 3-2 majority decision possible in the regulatory authority whose two other present members, representing Sindh and the federal government, are from Sindh.
“Half of Sindh is shut down even today,” Talpur said about protests in his province while speaking on a point order on a question he has regularly agitated in almost every session of the lower house for more than a year, particularly repeating his objection to the planned construction of a power plant over Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal that he thinks will hit supplies to Sindh, though the government says the plant will use only extra water from Punjab’s share whenever available.
Raja Asghar, Dawn (Islamabad), Feburay 20, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/06-resolution-of-water-row-matter-of-days%2C-na-told-020¬rs-03
INTER-PROVINCIAL ISSUES
Giving hope to those demanding institutionalised decision-making and the reconciliation of differences between the provinces, Thursday brought two pieces of good news. First, the Inter-Provincial Coordination Committee, essentially an administrative forum headed by a federal minister, managed what appears to be some kind of breakthrough in relations between Punjab and Sindh over water sharing.
Second, the president issued a notification that essentially reactivated the dormant Council of Common Interests, a constitutional body that is tasked with, inter alia, resolving complaints by the provinces about interference with water supplies. Water, or the lack thereof, has been in the news lately and the source of much anxiety for the provinces because of the ongoing winter crop season.
Yet, the CCI and IPCC are about more than just water. Thursday’s IPCC meeting also dealt with the demarcation of marine boundaries between Sindh and Balochistan, a framework for the exchange of prisoners between provinces, the need for repairing or installing gates at railway crossings across the country (not quite as insignificant an issue as some may imagine: the estimated total cost is Rs38bn) and the issue of the collection of certain taxes in cantonments across the country.
While none of this sounds very glamorous, they constitute the nuts and bolts of running a federation smoothly. Moreover, such tasks have taken on a greater sense of urgency in recent years because centrifugal forces in various parts of the country have been tugging at the national fabric.
The story of the CCI has been even more demoralising for those seeking a stronger federation. The CCI has more or less fallen into disuse over the years with no government, military or civilian, showing much interest in its operation since the 1970s. Few citizens may even know that three articles of the constitution are devoted to the CCI (Article 153-155). Therein lies one of the problems with improving institutionalised decision-making in the country: little to no attention is paid to the need to simply operationalise the many very good ideas already contained in the constitution, such as the CCI.  
In addition to dealing with water disputes, as already mentioned, the CCI shall, according to Article 154, “formulate and regulate policies in relation to matters in Part II of the Federal Legislative List”. The list covers railways, mineral oil and natural gas and development of industries — in short, foundational elements of the national economy. So does the reactivation of the CCI herald the beginning of a new, more positive era? Unfortunately, the answer is: not necessarily. Last August a similar announcement was made with much fanfare but then nothing happened.
Editorial, Dawn (Islamabad), March 6, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/16-interprovincial-issues-hs-02
THE LOOMING WATER CRISIS
The perennial jostling at the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) is an indication of the country’s constrained water resources. Although termed ‘renewable’, in reality water replenishment comes with severe limits.
Barring Karachi and Hyderabad, the last monsoon rains in the country were 30 per cent below the average amount. No doubt, the vagaries of nature complicate water management. However, the progressively declining availability of water in Pakistan and our inaction over the years should be of equal concern.
According to the Planning and Development Division, between 1997 and 2005, overall water availability decreased from 1,299 to 1,101m3 (cubic metres) per capita; another study puts that figure closer to 1000m3. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, Pakistan’s water availability places the country at the bottom of 26 Asian states; no wonder, then, that the country is increasingly being categorised as a ‘high stress’ country in terms of water.
Of the total surface area of the planet, nearly 71 per cent is comprised of water. Of this imposing segment, 97.5 per cent is saltwater, leaving 2.5 per cent as freshwater. Of this fraction, 70 per cent is frozen in icecaps while about 29 per cent lies in underground aquifers or as subsoil moisture. This leaves a minuscule one per cent freshwater for human consumption.
Awareness of that inadequacy is not all-encompassing. The majority of us live in reckless abandon, as if this diminishing commodity is actually in surfeit. According to one study, for example, the US uses 1.6 billion gallons of freshwater per day to flush its toilets — equivalent to 25 billion glasses of drinking water each day. This seems an indefensible disparity.
In terms of sector-wise contribution to Pakistan’s GDP, agriculture stands at 20.4 per cent, manufacturing at 26.6 per cent and the service sector at 53 per cent. Opposed to this, the ratio of water consumption is 96 per cent for agriculture, two per cent for the manufacturing sector and two per cent for domestic usage. As a world average, agriculture accounts for 69 per cent of all annual water withdrawals, industry for 23 per cent and domestic usage for eight per cent.
Yet the disparity in our matrix is not entirely surprising, given that Pakistan is overwhelmingly an arid country with an agriculture-dependent economy that employs over 45 per cent of the workforce. Unfortunately, intensive irrigation regimes and poor drainage practices have caused water¬logging and soil salinity throughout Pakistan’s countryside.
As a result, vast expanses of rich agricultural land are too wet or salty to yield any meaningful harvest. Conversely, downstream Indus has shrunk to a canal, adversely affecting ecosystems.
For decades the world has enjoyed an abundance of high-quality freshwater that was inexpensive to obtain. With our communities facing increased shortages, we need to adopt modern ways of conserving our water assets. Through the media, we need to educate our populace about the impending water crisis and the significance of conservation, emphasising that reuse methodologies must be adopted by each city and town, and even at the level of individual units.
Similar awareness about the reuse of water has to be instilled in the industrial sector. In many other countries, the green movement has obligated the introduction of water-reuse practices in industries. We, too, must augment our resources through innovative rainwater harvesting, storm-water management, wastewater recycling and other efficient and sustainable systems.
Water use is subdivided into potable and non-potable irrigation, industry and groundwater recharge. Our society must be encouraged to use greywater for non-potable uses. Greywater is all wastewater except toilet washes, which is called blackwater.
The world’s climate patterns are changing, affecting every facet of society, ecosystems and economies. The wasteful use of water in agriculture deprives wetlands, streams, deltas, plants and animals of their share. As aquatic and terrestrial environments are damaged and ecosystems change; the strictest scrutiny of our principal water-user, the agriculture sector, must be exercised.
Pakistan uses flood irrigation, an archaic system, whereas other nations have progressed to alternate methods such as drip and sprinkler systems, to save on water. In the US and Europe, water-use for agriculture ranges between 40 and 50 per cent of their total resource.
Pakistan must formulate a decisive policy on automating its irrigation system. The task is gigantic, for it also requires re-educating farmers. It must therefore be done on an incremental basis, targeting selected land parcels for implementation and strict compliance.
The federal government needs to introduce ‘water credit’ available to those requiring financial assistance to equip their infrastructure. Grants are not the way to go, for these are at best limited in scope and tend to reach only the influential who usually squander it. Loans, on the other hand, show a perpetuating trend.
A scheme can also be employed, where water is supplied at a sliding rate commensurate with the incorporation of water-saving technologies: farmers and industries that use antiquated ways could pay higher water-charges than those conforming to the national policy. With such a focused approach, Pakistan would head towards aligning closely to world usage percentages. Even if we initially save only one per cent of water each year, this should have a snowball effect and we should fare well in the coming decades.
For any plan to succeed there must be a shared belief that the rising tide of recovery will raise every boat, not just some. Therefore, it is essential to involve all stakeholders whilst formulating a strategy. The recovery initiative has to comprise more than mere issuance of another policy: it has to be backed by political will, accountability and the commitment to change attitudes.
To a teeming segment of our population, the key to life is the provision of clean water. That so little has been done in this field is unfortunate. The numbers affected are not just statistics, they represent real people awaiting real action.
Ahmad Hayat, Dawn (Islamabad), March 9, 2010,  http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/the-looming-water-crisis-930
WATER WOES
Nationalists in Sindh accuse Punjab of deliberately starving the lower riparian of water, while some otherwise informed inhabitants of Punjab hold to this day that discharges into the Arabian Sea amount to a waste of a precious resource. We need to get away from these conspiracy theories and work together, for the collective good of the country. Pakistan is already categorised as a water-stressed nation and is, in fact, hovering around the water-starved level. The vagaries of climate change and the burden of a burgeoning population will only add to our troubles. Consider this: Pakistan’s per capita availability of water stood at 5,300 cubic metres per person in 1951. By 2006 this figure had fallen to 1,105 cubic metres. The situation today is probably even more dire.
The Ravi now is little more than a sewage drain in its incarnation near Lahore. Downstream of Kotri, the once mighty Indus, the river Sindhu, has been so choked by dams that cattle wander along its beds. Agriculture in Sindh has taken a huge hit due to water scarcity and riverine fishermen have suffered too. Even more troubling perhaps is the problem of sea intrusion. The Indus was historically strong enough to push back the sea but that is no longer the case. Estimates vary, depending on the political affiliations of those producing the figures, but the sum total is staggering by any count. Unbiased observers believe that at least two million acres of arable land has been devoured in Sindh by sea intrusion over the last 20 years. Crops, homes and livelihoods have been lost, and extra pressure exerted on urban infrastructures. Human dignity is also a victim. Farmers and herders, who once had their own land and animals, are now being forced to clean shrimp for a pittance in Karachi’s outlying fishing communities.
Sunday marked the International Day of Action for Rivers. The nationalists were out in force, as expected, but conspicuous by their absence were those whose voices could be called tempered. Our inter-provincial disputes must now give way to a more informed discourse on India’s illegal water appropriation in Indian-administered Kashmir. We must also say goodbye to our profligate ways. Agriculture accounts for nearly 97 per cent of all water usage in Pakistan, and everyone knows that we waste this resource every single day. Canal lining and land-levelling projects are behind schedule and there has been little or no government support for modern irrigation systems. The problem doesn’t end there. Pesticide-ridden run-off from overly watered farms is polluting waterways and natural aquifers. Water can no longer be taken for granted and integrated management is the need of the hour.
Editorial, Dawn (Islamabad), March 16, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/14-water-woes-630-zj-09
CHASHMA-JHELUM ROW
The water issue once again threatens to create acrimony among the provinces. The acting chairman of the Indus River System Authority has unilaterally asked Wapda to open the Chashma-Jhelum link canal and release 10,000 cusecs of water. The Punjab government had recently written to Irsa and asked for the release of 15,000 cusecs. But according to a report in this newspaper both the federal government’s and Sindh’s representative opposed the move. The stalemate over the Chashma-Jhelum canal has persisted for the past several months. It has resulted in boycotts of meetings, protests and resignations by Irsa members when things have not gone their way. Sindh and Balochistan are of the view that Chashma-Jhelum is a flood canal and not for perennial use. The feeling in Punjab is that lessened flows in the canal will adversely affect agriculture in the south of the province. Observers point out that by opening the canal when a flood situation does not exist Punjab wants to set a precedent so that the canal can be used permanently. The lower riparians are wary of this as they fear cuts in their share of water.
Perhaps the key issue here is that the regulatory body must act in a neutral manner. While considering the demands of all the federating units, it must not be seen as tilting towards a particular one. The acting chairman, who is also Punjab’s representative in Irsa, should not have taken a unilateral decision. Decisions should be made on technical grounds and should be acceptable to all. A national perspective is required, especially when dealing with an issue as sensitive as water. Sacrifice, as well as magnanimity, is required of the federating units. It is hoped that the issue is resolved amicably and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. For this to happen there must be dialogue and compromise, as boycotts and further acrimony will lead nowhere. Ultimately, for national cohesion it is essential that water management is undertaken in a judicious manner and that a spirit of accommodation prevails so that contentious issues can be resolved.
Editorial, Dawn (Islamabad), July 8, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/chashmajhelum-row-870
THE WATER ROW
It is quite evident we need a more effective mechanism to reduce tensions over water resources that divide provinces and create new strains within the Federation. We have seen disputes erupt many times over water and its distribution, with the latest involving orders by the IRSA member from Punjab, in his capacity as acting chairman, to open the Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal. While bringing water to irrigated agricultural lands in the Punjab the move would reduce flow down the Indus to Sindh where water scarcity has already had a profound impact on farmers and also other households. To protest the decision two members of IRSA have threatened to put in their resignations.
It is easy to understand why the new crisis has arisen. The low rainfall this year has placed additional strains on existing resources and threatened virtual drought. The arrival of monsoon rains, which have already been falling in Karachi, should help replenish depleted reservoirs. The IRSA issue however goes well beyond this. The question is not of water alone but of provincial attitudes and a willingness to think beyond the bounds of a specific province. Notably Sindh, but also other smaller provinces, have argued that Punjab's reluctance to do so and the support it receives from the bureaucracy and others in powerful places is a key factor in the discord. The problem for now concerns the equitable distribution of water and allegations of misuse of authority to favour one unit. We need a national vision which allows people to spread their gaze wider. Few in Punjab have any real comprehension of the issues of Sindh – or for that matter the other provinces. We need conferences, seminars and discussions to build such an understanding. Few in our country are able to interact with those from beyond their province. The barriers must come down in order to build harmony. It will naturally take time for this to happen. Till then we expect a demonstration of greater wisdom from those in key positions. Unilateral decisions solve nothing.
Editorial, News International (Rawalpindi), July 9, 2010, http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=249722
A GROWING WATER PROBLEM
A recent study has pointed out that 30,000 people die each year in Karachi alone from the use of unsafe water. The cumulative number of deaths caused by diarrhoea and other water-borne diseases across rural areas and shanty towns throughout the country is certainly much higher
Pakistan is being threatened by a serious water crisis. If managed poorly, the current water scarcity could translate into a major catastrophe in just a few decades. Our national reliance on a single river basin, the threat of climate change, water wastages and the lack of coherent conservation policies are all factors that are said to contribute to the problem.
As Pakistan’s population increases, so does the demand for water use in agriculture, within households and in manufacturing processes. The Washington-based think-tank, the Woodrow Wilson Centre, has pointed out that Pakistan already has amongst the lowest amount of water availability per person in the world. This situation is feared to become worse in the near future. If Pakistan continues to rely on the inefficient flood system of irrigation, and the current rate of climate change continues as is being currently projected, it is estimated that by 2050 Pakistan will feed nearly 30 million less people than it can today. And this is just an estimation concerning food production, not to speak about what would happen to the availability of water for other basic needs of the growing populace, such as drinking or sanitation.
Pakistan’s Indus River Basin is supplied by melting snow and glaciers from the Himalayas. India also makes use of the Indus River under a 1960 water treaty. But this treaty is under much strain due to a number of intrusive dams being built by India to contend with its own increasing water demands. When the Indus begins to lose large amounts of its flow due to ongoing increased melting of the Himalayan glaciers, these growing tensions may become untenable.
Amidst fears that water scarcity in Pakistan could lead to mass starvation, and possibly war with India, a US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue Water Working Group has been set up to encourage Pakistan to use its existing water resources more efficiently. The thrust of these efforts seems to focus on modernising Pakistan’s agricultural system. The World Bank has recently allocated loan funds of $ 146 million for the second phase of the Pakistan Barrages Improvement Project to rehabilitate and modernise the Jinnah Barrage, and to improve irrigation and water management in the agricultural sector.
There is an urgent need for more efficiency in irrigation given that over 90 percent of Pakistan’s water is used for agriculture. This water allocation for agriculture is very high in fact, given that the average proportion of water diverted to agriculture in other developing countries is between 70 to 75 percent. This percentage could be lowered if irrigational management becomes more efficient, since no more than 40 percent of the irrigation water is currently reaching crops. It is a shame that water is being wasted like this given the perpetual inter-provincial disputes over water sharing, and the fact that many poor farmers do not get enough water for their crops across all agrarian areas of the country.
At least the use of groundwater through tube-wells has helped increase crop yields for those who can afford to use them. But the unchecked growth of tube-wells has also encouraged wastage, resulting in falling water tables and the overall degradation of groundwater quality. Over the last three decades, Pakistan has tried several direct and indirect means to ensure groundwater management, but their success has been limited.
There is an urgent need to develop a more comprehensive framework suited specifically to Pakistani needs, which includes focus on appropriate water use and conservation technologies, as well as the revision of existing cropping patterns to improve the efficiency of water use within agriculture.
There is not much evidence of these required measures however. Instead, the government is thinking of allowing agribusiness companies from other countries to lease agricultural land in Pakistan to grow crops by tapping into deep underground water aquifers. If these underground aquifers are deleted due to a lack of adequate oversight, the consequences for local farmers and communities will be devastating, the negative implications of which will far outstrip the short-term benefits of injecting more money into the national coffers.
On the other hand, only a minuscule proportion of water available is being used for drinking water and sanitation purposes. This is despite the fact that more than 55 million Pakistanis are estimated to lack access to clean water. A recent study has pointed out that 30,000 people die each year in Karachi alone from the use of unsafe water. The cumulative number of deaths caused by diarrhoea and other water-borne diseases across rural areas and shanty towns throughout the country is certainly much higher. A significant majority of poor people do not have access to running water for toilets, and many of them have no choice but to defecate outdoors. Moreover, the mixing of sewage and drinking water lines has repeatedly posed health hazards in major cities in several parts of the country.
Donors are suggesting that Pakistan must look at ways to charge more for water as a method of encouraging conservation. It is however feared that such measures will likely be unpopular. While politicians may say that poor farmers will be adversely affected by water charges, the real reason for their resistance would be to safeguard the interests of landlords who presently have to pay next to nothing to use all the water that they need. The details of water charging do, however, have to be worked out very carefully to ensure that poorer farmers and sharecroppers are spared the brunt of any additional costs.
The government should urgently pass a series of laws to prioritise water allocation. Such policies should ensure that drinking water and sanitation are available. Efficient use of irrigational and groundwater is also vital to prevent water wastage and to decrease the proportion of water being diverted to agriculture. Water use in agriculture itself must be primarily given to crops that are to provide national food security. Only thereafter should irrigational needs for boosting overall agricultural production for exports be considered.
Syed Mohammad Ali, Daily Times (Lahore), July 13, 2010, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\07\13\story_13-7-2010_pg3_3
PUNJAB, SINDH WATER ROW SETTLES
Water dispute between Punjab and Sindh has amicably been resolved and Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has appreciated the sagacity of the Chief Ministers of the two provinces for expeditious settlement of the issue.
Water row erupted between the Punjab and Sindh as a result of opening of Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal has been resolved in a meeting of the chief ministers of the two provinces and chaired by the Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani here Tuesday.
The July 6, 2010 order of Indus River System Authority (Irsa) for water regulation was agreed to be withdrawn by consensus and with immediate effect.
At the conclusion of the meeting between the two Chief Ministers and their teams, the Prime Minister was apprised that the reservations of Sindh Province regarding procedure adopted by IRSA for water regulation as per order of 6th of this month was agreed to be withdrawn by consensus and with immediate effect.
The Prime Minister was further apprised that it was also agreed that IRSA will be requested to convene an urgent meeting of the Authority on Wednesday (today) to review the regulations keeping in view the current water availability and provincial indents of various canal system for subsequent necessary orders to regulate the water supplies.
Both the Chief Ministers lauded the Prime Minister for his bipartisan approach, reconciliatory role and guidance given during the meeting earlier which helped in reaching an understanding.
Earlier, chairing the meeting of the Chief Ministers, the Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani observed that all provinces have a stake in one another and that what binds them together is greater than what drives them apart.
The high level meeting was also attended by Federal Ministers for Water and Power, and Petroleum and Natural Resources, provincial ministers, members of the provincial assemblies, federal and provincial secretaries and experts.
The Prime Minister said that consensus adoption of the 18th amendment, the NFC Award, Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment, fight against terrorism and successful load-management through the National Energy Conference bespeak the political maturity and sagacity of both the national and provincial leadership.
He said that his Government will protect the rights of all the provinces and ensure equitable distribution as per the 1991 Water Accord.
He also emphasized on the need to depoliticize the IRSA and be made more effective.
The Prime Minister stressed upon the need to address the structural problems in the river flow and install a foolproof monitoring system of river flow acceptable to all the provinces.
The Chief Ministers appreciated the sagacity of the Prime Minister and thanked him for holding a meeting in a friendly atmosphere.
They also assured the Prime Minister that they would clear the misunderstanding and resolve the dispute in an amicable way as desired by him.
Sharafat Kazmi, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), July 14, 2010, http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=41288
RIGHT APPROACH TO SETTLE ISSUES
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, who is establishing his credentials as champion of reconciliation, has added another feather to his cap by facilitating amicable settlement of the row between the two federating units over opening of Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal. He hosted the Chief Ministers of Punjab and Sindh on Tuesday, charmed them because of his moderate temperament and the conducive environment helped broker an understanding on the dispute.
By doing so, the Prime Minister has successfully averted another controversy with potential to trigger a national crisis harming unity of the federation and harmony among the provinces. Punjab also, has once again, demonstrated its magnanimity in accommodating the viewpoint of Sindh on the issue of opening of the canal despite the fact that it had a strong case to defend its position at any forum. However, as in the past, it did not insist on sticking to its position and accepted the demand of Sindh for immediate closure of the canal, which could also mean immeasurable loss to the farmers of south Punjab, the agricultural sector and the economy of the country. There should have been realization that the water was not being diverted to sea but utilized for irrigation purposes, nevertheless some politicians thought it appropriate to do politics on agricultural and economic interests of the country as well. Irritants do crop up among provinces and in a democratic polity these should be resolved through dialogue and understanding but unfortunately some politicians, who thrive only on churning out venomous and hard hitting statements, behave irresponsibly and as a result these issues assume dangerous dimensions. Their conduct might have made them somewhat popular in the eyes of extremist forces in the society but the short-sightedness on their part creates misunderstanding among the provinces and weakens national unity and solidarity. There is, therefore, need to marginalize such forces through timely action as was done by the Prime Minister in convening a meeting of the Chief Ministers of Punjab and Sindh on the issue of Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal.
We hope that in future, instead of making fiery statements, such issues would be resolved through dialogue and with a spirit of sacrifice and accommodation.
Editorial, Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), July 15, 2010, http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=41511
KBD: A SAFETY VALVE
Nature, in the eyes of many a keen observer of life, is too cruel to overlook a lapse; it operates strictly according to laws of its own, violations are invariably punished and adherence equally rewarded; The folly of politicising Kalabagh Dam, a project beneficial to the country in all its aspects, is being stingingly brought home to us by the ravages the ongoing floods are causing from one end of the country to the other. The logic is simple. Had the dam been in place when water began gushing downwards from the mountains and simultaneously pouring from the heaven above, it would have been absorbed, to a great measure, in its vast reservoir, of a capacity of 6.1 million acre feet. The surplus would have caused lesser damage, the extent depending upon the quantity of the water. …
Editorial, Nation (Islamabad), August 11, 2010, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/11-Aug-2010/KBD-a-safety-valve
BASHA DAM TO BE INAUGURATED NEXT MONTH:NA TOLD
Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervaiz Ashraf on Friday informed the lower house of Parliament that the construction work on Diamer Basha dam would be inaugurated by the Prime Minister next month adding that land acquisition process has been initiated.
In response to various questions raised by parliamentarians in question hour, he said the government was vigorously pursuing the harnessing of water resources to improve the water availability in the country.
He said the designs and tender documents of Diamer Basha dam have been completed and Asian Development Bank (ADB) has promised to finance the project.
The minister said that a comprehensive plan to construct a number of small dams in the country had also been launched to provide irrigation facilities to areas outside the command if Indus system.
He said Rs.1.249 billion had been incurred on the planning and investigation of Kalabagh dam so far, adding that instead of initiating work on controversial projects and wasting huge money the government is working on non controversial projects.
In response to another question, the minister said the power shortfall in July, August and September 2010 was recorded as 3257 MW, 3409 MW and 3297 MW respectively.
Ashraf said the main cause of loadshedding is devastation caused by floods adding that in many areas the flood water washed away the grid stations, transmission lines and transformers. However, he said efforts are underway to improve the situation.
He further said that there is huge gap between installed capacity and power generation.
He said Pakistan raised objections on the design features and spillway structure of Kishenganga hydroelectric plant.
But India did not cooperate in resolving the issue bilaterally, therefore the government has instituted the proceedings for resolving the dispute by court of arbitration as provided under the Indus Water Treaty, he added.
To another question he said the project to distribute two energy savers to every household in exchange of incandescent bulbs is under submission for approval of the government.
He said a consultant has been hired to formulate the proposal and mechanism for launching of the project, adding that the cost of the project is $ 85 million.
To another question he said that 6,300 villages were electrified under village electrification project initiated in 1993-94 with the assistance of Japan.
Dawn (Islamabad), October 9, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawncontentlibrary/dawn/news/ business/amer-basha-dam-to-be-inaugurated-next-month-na-told-jd-01