The Baglihar controversy

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

What’s propelling piracy?

VESSELS on high seas, off the Horn of Africa, are in the eye of storm. Several mercantile and military ships have been targeted by pirates off the Gulf of Aden in search of bounty loaded on them. Pirates there have hijacked around 30 ships this year and the ransom demands have skyrocketed. When pirates hijacked a freighter off the coast of Somalia last week, they hit the jackpot. The Ukrainian ship was laden with weaponry, ammunition and 33 Russian tanks. The heavily armed pirates are now holding the ship’s 20 crew members hostage and are demanding $US20 million in ransom. Countless ships registered in the UAE and several Gulf countries too have fallen victim to these pirates in the past. The pirates supposedly act as middlemen and agencies as they sell their booty, especially arms and ammunitions seized on high seas, in the open market of Africa and Asia. That brings them under the culpable shadow of being hand in glove with unscrupulous elements such as the Al Qaeda and their likes. Piracy is hardly a new phenomenon for the seas off the Horn of Africa or other high seas. Throughout history, there have been people willing to rob others transporting goods on the water. The era 1650 to 1720 was known as the ‘Golden age of Piracy’ as Europeans launched their gunboat diplomacy worldwide in pursuit of new shores and markets for their neo-colonial expansion.
The 3000-kilometre wide coast of Somalia has become a hotbed of such activities since the US forces stepped in Mogadishu to prevent the pro-Islamic political forces from seizing power. The US interference in the region with the help of its proxies like Ethiopia has pushed it towards anarchy and lawlessness. And now the other big player, Russia, is also beginning to make up for the lost time by asserting itself in the region. And economic instability and extreme poverty in Somalia and the region are adding fuel to this fire. Today, there are no jobs, no security and no basic necessities of life for the people of Somalia. As the London-based Chatham House says in its latest report, a young man who may have no other realistic opportunities to make a lot of money in their home villages from farming or fishing can make up to 10, 20, 30, 100,000 pounds from each instance of piracy. No wonder Somalians are increasingly taking to piracy. The region has already paid a heavy price for the US war on terror and attempts to marginallise the indigenous political forces. The US and EU proposal to use military force to protect one of the world’s ancient and key trade routes. Major players such as the US, EU and Russia should engage Africa as a trading partner, rather than exploit its wealth and geography.

—Khaleej Times