Indus Waters Treaty: India rejects Pakistan’s stance on Chenab River projects

LAHORE: Pakistan has failed to convince India over construction of water sector projects being built on Chenab River as two-day negotiations at the platform of Permanent Indus Water Commission remained inconclusive.

The Indian delegation insisted during the meeting that the engineering design of Pakal Dul Dam, being built on a Chenab River’s tributary, has been prepared in line with the provisions of Indus Waters Treaty and there is no need to amend it as per Pakistan demand.

India stubbornly claimed that there is no substance in the case of Pakistan against the Pakal Dul Dam. “As per treaty, we can build storage on the Western Rivers. India further asserted that same is with the claim of Pakistan over construction of Lower Kalnai Hydropower Project. Therefore, work on both the water sector projects would continue,” they said.

Pakistan’s delegation led by Mehar Ali Shah, Indus Water Commissioner, miserably failed in convincing the Indian side that both capacity of reservoir of Pakal Dul Dam and height of freeboard were against the parameters set under the Indus Waters Treaty.

One of the most important projects from Pakistan point of view has been Pakal Dul Dam being built on River Chenab, which is under discussion at Indus Waters Commission level for last several years. The Pakal Dul Dam assumes immense importance as far as Pakistan’s point of view is concerned. It will be the first water storage infrastructure project by India on the Western Rivers.

“We made it clear to India that there should be no control on dead storage of dam and therefore spillway should be placed much higher than proposed level. But to no avail as India did not entertain Pakistan’s objections,” said sources.

In addition to Pakal Dul Dam, Pakistan also raised objection to the construction of Lower Kalnai Hydropower projects being constructed by India in violation of Indus Waters Treaty.

Separately, Pakistan also expressed keenness to visit six sites for inspection during the talks. “We have not only sought data of these sites but also expressed our desire to visit these sites as soon as possible. It is learnt that India is also not allowing Pakistan to visit these sites on one pretext or the other,” the sources said.

Interestingly, Mehar Ali Shah did not face media after conclusion of the meeting on Thursday despite promising to do so. A source familiar with the negotiation process conceded that Shah had nothing to say in front of media as talk with Indian was a futile exercise. In fact, the sources added, it is Indian desire not to speak with media over water disputes, which Pakistan avidly fulfilled.

Keeping in view no headway in the talks, it is likely that Pakistan would be left with no option but to explore third party option for resolving pending issues.

It is pertinent to mention here that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone of Pakal Dul Dam in May. Pakal Dul Dam is a reservoir-based scheme currently under construction on Marusudar River, the main right bank tributary of river Chenab in Kishtwar tehsil of Doda district in Occupied Kashmir. The power project envisages construction of a 167-metre high concrete face rock-fill dam and an underground powerhouse. Its full reservoir level has been projected at 1,700 meters.

It may be noted that the Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan with the help of the World Bank, which is also a signatory. Seen as one of the most successful international treaties, it has survived frequent tensions, including conflict, and has provided a framework for irrigation and hydropower development for more than half a century.

According to a World Bank document, the Treaty sets out a mechanism for cooperation and information exchange between the two countries regarding their use of the rivers, known as the Permanent Indus Commission, which has a commissioner from each country.

The Treaty also sets forth distinct procedures to handle issues which may arise: “questions” are handled by the Commission; “differences” are to be resolved by a Neutral Expert; and “disputes” are to be referred to a seven-member arbitral tribunal called the “Court of Arbitration”.