Home / Articles / Kishanganga Dam: World Bank too slow to be effective

Kishanganga Dam: World Bank too slow to be effective

The familiar pattern is that while World Bank is still busy putting on its boots, India completes its marathon of constructing controversial dams, one by one, on the rivers allotted to Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).  While World Bank drags its feet, it allows India to continue building the dams. One wonders whether it is wilful connivance or (dys) functional inertia. Either way a course correction is needed to keep the World Bank relevant to the ITW. As of now,  one may categorize World Bank too slow to be effective.

The IWT is a profoundly important international agreement that provides an essential cooperative framework for India and Pakistan to address current and future challenges of effective water management to meet human needs and achieve development goals. Treaty evolved in 1960, ever since, it has managed to endure, and Pakistan and India have not fought a war over water.

Senior World Bank officials met on May 21-22 with a delegation from the Government of Pakistan to discuss issues regarding the Indus Waters Treaty and opportunities within the Treaty to seek an amicable resolution. Pakistan’s delegation shared with the Bank its concerns about the recent inauguration of the Kishenganga hydroelectric plant.

A Pakistani official who attended the meetings claimed that the World Bank has assured to bring resolution to the issue. He added that Pakistan had lodged the protest in the strongest possible words. The Kishanganga project has the potential to disrupt flows, which will also adversely affect the recently constructed 969MW Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project. Kishanganga dam violates the World Bank-mediated treaty on the sharing of the Indus River and its tributaries.

Several procedural options for resolving the disagreement over the interpretation of the Treaty’s provisions were discussed. “While an agreement on the way forward was not reached at the conclusion of the meetings, the World Bank will continue to work with both the countries to resolve the issues in an amicable manner and in line with the treaty provisions,” stated the World Bank.

Kishanganga project was started in 2007. On May 17, same year, Pakistan moved for international arbitration. The Court of Arbitration, found in its first interim order that the dam component would “eventually enable India to exercise a certain degree of control over the volume of water that will reach Pakistan” and ordered a temporary halt to construction. A second interim order in 2013 allowed construction to resume because entitlement to prevent such diversions was based on a demonstrated utilisation of the waters in Pakistan’s territory. Since Pakistan’s own Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project was conceived and initiated after Kishanganga project, the Court of Arbitration found that Pakistan did not have any demonstrated requirements for utilisation of the water of the tributary at the time when the dispute began.

In 2013, the court ruled that the Kishanganga was “a run-of-the-river plant within the meaning of the Indus Waters Treaty and that India may accordingly divert water from the Kishanganga (Neelum River) for power generation”. The court also ruled that India was under an obligation to “construct and operate” the Kishanganga dam in such a way that it “maintains a minimum flow of water in the river”. The minimum flow was fixed at 9cumecs. India declared that it was lowering the height of the dam from the planned 98m to 37m and resumed construction at full swing. Pakistan, has however, collected ample evidence to prove that India was violating the treaty as well as the court’s verdict.

In 2016, Pakistan had filed a complaint with World Bank, saying India had contravened the pause placed in 2016 for completion of the Kishanganga Dam. In August 2016, Pakistan asked the World Bank to appoint a court of arbitration to review the designs of Kishanganga and another project on the Chenab, named Ratle. India rejected the suggestion, saying that Pakistan’s objections were technical in nature and that the matter should be decided by a neutral expert. Pakistan disagreed, arguing that a decision by a technical expert was non-binding and India would be under no obligation to implement the expert’s recommendation. The World Bank set in motion both processes but paused them when India and Pakistan refused to withdraw their proposals. After the pause, the bank held several rounds of talks but failed to resolve the dispute.

Dam violates IWT “Pakistan is seriously concerned about the inauguration (of the Kishanganga plant),” the Foreign Office said in a statement on May18.

“Pakistan believes that the inauguration of the project without the resolution of the dispute is tantamount to violation of the IWT.”  Earlier Indian minister for transport and water resources had stated on March 26 that India is proposing to dam the three Western rivers in order to curb the flow into Pakistan. The Indian argument is that it has a right to dam these rivers on the grounds that it is imperative for national development. It had not hitherto been able to utilise water from the three rivers for its own needs and that Pakistan was ‘benefitting’ from the ‘extra’ water contrary to the spirit of the IWT.

India describes this dam as a storage work for power generation purposes only, whereas Pakistan maintains that because its design, it actually diverts water from the Neelum river into the Bonar Madmati Nullah, thus it violates Article III (2) of the Treaty. It also contravenes Article IV (6) of the IWT with regard to safeguarding the natural flows of all water channels under the treaty.

World Bank has disappointed Pakistan during recent talks. It has stated that “as a signatory to the Treaty, the World Bank’s role is limited and procedural”. In particular, the role in relation to ‘differences’ and ‘disputes’ is limited to the designation of people to fulfil certain roles when requested by either or both parties, it added. World Bank must take this action in a timely manner, because delay in doing so has enabled India to complete most of its projects.

However, the silver lining is that the “The World Bank remains committed to act in good faith and with complete impartiality and transparency in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Treaty, while continuing to assist the countries”.

 

About admin

Check Also

Time to create Rakhine as a Muslim State for Rohingyas

Myanmar insists that Rohingyas are interlopers from Bangladesh despite most of them living for generations in western Rakhine state of Myanmar, they have long been denied basic political rights and liberties. Bangladesh does not accept that Rohingyas have a Bengali lineage. Anthropologists believe that Rohingya roots trace back to Saudi Arabia, who migrated to Myanmar (Burma) around 7th & 8th century AC. Except Bangladesh and Myanmar who think such a return as a good idea, there are hardly any buyers of such forced eviction. United Nations doesn’t want forced eviction to happen. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, warned that forcing the first batch of about 2,200 Rohingya living in refugee camps to ground zero of mass violence against the minority Muslim group would be a “clear violation” of core international legal principles. Human Rights groups have called the move “dangerous and premature.” A number of Human Rights groups say “they are shocked”. Even the people who will be affected the most, Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, are upset that their future, once again, is being decided without their input.So far Aung Suu Kyi’s leadership performance has been derisive. No one expected governing to be easy for her, as country’s leader. Her election had ended more than a half-century of military rule; yet the hegemony has not retrieved; and Bonapartism is galore. In pursuit of her over ambitious political objectives, she has been used and discredited by Junta. Suu Kyi had declared ending the long-running ethnic insurgencies that have torn the country apart as her top priority, but her lacklustre peace effort has proved ineffective. Ever since fighting between government forces and ethnic groups has been spiralling up. Though World has been shocked by reports that the military has carried out atrocities, including rape and murder, against the Rohingya, Aung Suu has said little on the matter and done even lesser. Her government’s growing suppression of speech on the Internet seems perverse for a onetime democracy icon who spent 15 years under house arrest. No wonders her popularity is on decline. Growth has slowed and foreign investment has dipped significantly. Suu Kyi faces daunting challenges. In rebuilding the country, she must overcome decades of mismanagement and profiteering by previous military governments that enriched the generals and their cronies and brought the economy to its knees. The biggest stain on Suu Kyi’s record may be her government’s brutal treatment of the Rohingya, and her tepid response to it. Prevailing World order is known for acting very fast in Muslim versus non-Muslim conflicts where outcome is likely to benefit non-Muslims. And it shows criminal negligence when Muslims are likely to gain through political settlement of any such conflict. When pushed too hard, conflict is settled in a way that it’s a paralytic outcome, ensuring mitigation of equitable advantage to Muslim faction of population. Some of the conflicts like Kashmir and Palestine are deliberately kept on back burners as their settlement would benefit Muslim segment of respective population. Myanmar’s Rohingya conflict also falls in “let ferment” category. Likewise is the situation about Afghan and Yemen crisis, as well as simmering Middle East and North African Muslim countries. Muslims are right to assume that current World Order has not served them a fair deal; and unless there is a significant change in its format, Muslims will continue to be marginalised at state, community and individual levels. But the billion dollar question is that how long the current World Political Order would take to assume ownership of Myanmar crisis? Time has already reached for declaring Rakhine as a sovereign State where Rohingyas could live peacefully and practice their religion peacefully.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *