Battle for Kishenganga
So is it ‘Deuce’ or ‘Advantage Pakistan’?
Arjimand Hussain Talib
The India-Pakistan battle for Kishenganga Hydro-electric Project is now international. Late May, Pakistan informed India that it had instituted arbitration proceedings on the Kishenganga issue with the World Bank on May 18, 2010. It cited failure of bilateral talks with India on the project and the latter’s failure in addressing its concerns as the key reasons for doing so.
This news came close on the heels of the claims by the two countries earlier this month that they resolved their differences over three power projects in J&K, namely Baglihar Power Project, Uri II and Chutak Power Project. During those talks between Indus Water Commissioner G Ranganathan and his counterpart Jamaat Ali Shah, there was a mention of disagreement only related to the Nimoo Bazgo hydel power project in Ladakh region. There was no mention of Kishenganga.
The latest move also comes in the backdrop of the all-is-well environment created by the two countries’ Indus Commissioners’ meeting. So, now that the Kishenganga’s fate, like the Baglihar’s, will be decided by neutral arbitration, it is ‘advantage Pakistan’ or a ‘deuce’?
More than this move, what evokes curiosity is the ease with which both these countries seem to have taken this decision. Pakistan seems determined to make a point that bilateral talks have failed, necessitating neutral arbitration. India doesn’t seem to be alarmed by the proposition either.
Pakistan’s stand is that it is doing all this well within the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) provisions. According to it, its arbitration proceedings are in line with the paragraph 2 (b) and paragraph 6 of Annexure G to the IWT. It informed India that it is appointing H.E. Mr. Bruno Simma, Judge of the International Court of Justice and Mr. Jan Paulsson, an international legal consultant, as its arbitrators for the 7-member Court of Arbitration. Pakistani newspaper The Dawn on May 10th reported that Pakistan government had earmarked 10 million US dollars for fighting the arbitration case.
New Delhi, on its part, seems unalarmed. That is despite the inevitable spin off leading to internationalisation environment of the larger Jammu & Kashmir issue.
On Wednesday, India said that it has conveyed names of its two arbitrators related to the issue to Pakistan. The two persons who would plead India’s case are Peter Tomka, Vice President of the International Court of Justice and Professor Lucius Caflisch, an international legal expert and Member of the International Law Commission.
There are conflicting signals on why the two countries have in fact decided to take the international arbitration route. But one thing is certain: it marks an inevitable internationalization of Kashmir’s water issue.
In the first week of May, Mail Today reported that India is now finally open to neutral arbitration on the Kishenganga Project. The report said that the matter was discussed during the meeting between Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yusuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the SAARC summit at Thimpu. The report further quoted an Indian official source saying that even though the Indian Indus Water Commission officials have been in continuous touch with their Pakistani counterparts, offering bilateral talks to resolve the Kishenganga issue, the Pakistani side was adamant on neutral arbitration by the World Bank. Interestingly, the report quoted the Indian official saying that India did not see "any harm" in doing so.
There are reasons to believe that Pakistan’s political establishment was not too happy about the all-is-well feeling generated by the Indus Commissioners’ meeting.
On Monday, after being briefed by the Indus Water Commissioner Jamat Ali Shah on his water talks with India, the Chairman of Pakistan’s Parliamentary Committee on Kashmir, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, urged the Pakistan government to construct small dams in line with Indus Water Treaty rather than, what he said, wasting time in holding talks with India on water issue.
Fazl said “India prolonged the dialogue process on water issue and constructed Baglihar Dam by buying the time in contravention of Indus Water Treaty. Pakistan was now suffering a shortfall of 200,000 acre-feet.”
It is now the second time that the arbitration mechanism under Article IX of Indus Water Treaty is being invoked in the fifty years since the treaty came into force on 1 April 1960. The first arbitration happened on the Baglihar Power Project in February 12, 2007 when Pakistan said it was not satisfied with India’s rationale on the project design. The decision by the neutral arbitrator on Baglihar is widely known to have been more in India’s favor, with he conceding not only the construction of the dam with minor modification in its height but also shooting down Pakistan’s specific concerns relating to the installation of Gated Spillways, which India saw important for silt control.
Pakistan’s says its latest stand is based on Articles 7 & 9 of the International Convention of Non Navigational uses of International waters of 1997. However, the fact remains that it is not binding on either of the two countries and at no point replace the existing provisions of the IWT, which are seen far more favourable to Pakistan.
Pakistan primary fear is that the Wullar Barrage could be used as a geo-strategic weapon by India. It also feels that the project could be used by India as a potential to disrupt its Triple Canal Project (Upper Jhelum-Upper Chenab-Lower Doab). It is also concerned that the project could badly affect its Neelum Jhelum Hydro electro project.
There are two basic points which the neutral arbitrator may look on the issue. His judgment, on the basis of IWT provisions, could go to any side’s favor. Firstly, the arbitrator is expected to examine whether the diversion of water from Kishenganga to the Wullar Lake and thence to the Jhelum river is admissible under the Indus Water Treaty. Such a massive diversion on any of the tributaries of the Indus rivers has not happened before.
Secondly, it would also examine the key issue: whether Pakistan had initiated prior steps on the Neelam Jhelum Hydro electric project before the Kishenganga Project was initiated. In case that is really the case, then Kishenganga project may see some serious modifications, and even complete redesigning.
For the people of Jammu & Kashmir, however, it is a classic wait-and-watch case. Kishenganga project is as unhelpful to it as the Neelam Project on the other side of the LoC.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
All Parties Hurriyat Conference
Brothers in Arms?
Can Geelani, Mirwaiz, Abdullahs, Muftis, etc. agree to agree?
Arjimand Hussain Talib
A few days back, The New York Times reproduced a power point image of a stakeholder analysis done by the United States in Afghanistan. The image was bizarrely complex, making it beyond normal human comprehension. US political and military analysts shared jokes about the image. They saw it the most apt description of ‘a complexity called Afghanistan’, and also the reason why the US was not winning the war there.
The image had hundreds of stakeholders – political parties, jirgas, militias, drug cartels, civil services, police, local army, foreign armies, central government, local governments, media, religious groups, tribal chiefs, NGOs, et al - denoted as points in the image. The points were joined by a complex web of lines, which crossed, crisscrossed and double crossed across the image, sending brains into a state of tizzy.
Now imagine if we were to do a similar stakeholder analysis for J&K state, what would be the end product? Would a power point image depicting our situation be really different than that of Afghanistan?
Quite likely, our image will also be a complex web of varied actors, joined and separated by relationships, shared visions and disagreements. Lines would also show alignments. Some would symbolize disagreements. Some points and lines would show multiple visions, multiple relations and multiple loyalties.
In a nutshell, we may have to refer to the standard stakeholder analysis guidebook, which has a disclaimer: stakeholder analysis is not a helpful tool in understanding stakeholders and their stakes when the subjects - barring a few exceptions - are a free floating lot!
To have a complex stakeholder analysis image is bad in itself. A simpler image is a depiction of how simple and less complex our life is - as simple as that. An image to the contrary, obviously, refers to the contrary.
Jammu & Kashmir’s problem is that its stakeholder analysis gets all the more complex with each passing year. Every year there is a new addition of stakeholders, stakes and their relationships. Our collective catastrophe is aggravating. Kashmiri people are losing their spirit. There is a strong feeling that it is time to make a new beginning. There are some irreparable losses too. Some will take a long time to overcome.
We have talked a lot about the economic and social costs of the raging conflict and political instability J&K is in since decades. That is a colossal loss, we all know. But can we quantify the spiritual and psychological loss we are suffering?
Living a life of uncertainty and darkness for sixty long years – even longer than that – is a human catastrophe. A lack of certainty about the future is breeding sick minds in Kashmir. A lack of direction is breeding a strong sense of pessimism. Perpetual insecurity is breeding newer kind of disorders, which are impacting people’s genes. Psychological disorders are manifesting in physiological problems – which no research has been able capture or seek to fix so far. And it has not something to do with one generation or two alone; we are passing on adapted abnormalities through our genes to our coming generations too. It is a kind of epidemic which we need to talk about now.
Lately, the Muftis have been calling the pro-azadi groups to join hands for a ‘common cause’. The latter have shrugged off the suggestion. Mirwaiz Umar asked Geelani to come along. The latter too chose to take own path. Looking broadly, there are hardly any alignments or broad agreements to see in Kashmir today. People, groups and parties are disintegrating. A chain reaction of sorts is making the larger political goal look fuzzy. The irony is that Kashmir now has so many political voices, often working at cross purposes, that achieving political goals has become difficult. It is a party time for the foreign ruler.
In an environment where the mighty ruler can’t be overcome by force or by self ruin (like hartals) can disparate political voices help achieve political justice? Is there nothing in political terms that Geelani, Mirwaiz, Abdullahs, Muftis, Yasin, Sajjad, Shabir, Nayeem etc. can agree on? Is their vision for their land so disparate that they can’t even begin from one point?
Thinking of the impossible, sometimes, isn’t too naïve. The situation in Jammu & Kashmir - in particular the Kashmir Valley and the Muslim majority districts in Jammu – has reached a point which demands an honest introspection by the state’s key political players. And, finally, action.
What are the hurdles that come in the way of realizing the common dream of a politically free and economically sovereign Jammu & Kashmir? Between the extremes of political positions, are in-between political tangibles impossible to conceive? And what are the differences, by the way? Political? Personal?
What are the complexities? Are they fixations? Obsessions? Clash of ideologies? Clash of egos? Or a mix of these?
Disagreement of thought and approaches is a natural trait of the human race. There can be no utopia where all the people agree with each other all the times in all the circumstances. Disagreement is but natural.
Agreements over a broad range of issues amongst a broad spectrum of political thought are easier said than done, but not impossible.
Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah’s long struggle to reclaim J&K’s lost political sovereignty came to naught for many reasons. One reason had, of course, some thing to do with his political ambitions. Second was the polity itself. Whenever he was imprisoned by New Delhi, replacements were always handy. Did Sadiq, Mir Qasim, Ghulam Muhammad Shah and others come from the moon? Is today’s political environment any different?
If we deeply analyse J&K’s political environment, we realize the political status quo is entrenched as never before. There was a time when finding a replacement to a particular political formation in Srinagar wasn’t that easy. Today there is a wide array of political forces to choose from.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s vision of a political utopia is not bad in itself. But do today’s circumstances support overnight shift to such a political system? What about application of hikmah, which has been applied since ages by Muslim scholars, conquerors and leaders? The political system which the Abdullahs and the Muftis are part of can’t be a recipe for stability. The unjust political status quo in J&K can’t be a solution. An idea for political utopia doesn’t work in today’s world of acute interdependence and softer borders either.
A time has come when Kashmiris’ decades-old suffering must go. A time has arrived when its people desperately need a life of political freedom, dignity, friendship and a mutually beneficial engagement with its neighbors. There has to be a new relation based on shared visions and interests.
Can Geelani, Mirwaiz, Abdullahs, Muftis, etc. agree to agree?
Arjimand Hussain Talib
A few days back, The New York Times reproduced a power point image of a stakeholder analysis done by the United States in Afghanistan. The image was bizarrely complex, making it beyond normal human comprehension. US political and military analysts shared jokes about the image. They saw it the most apt description of ‘a complexity called Afghanistan’, and also the reason why the US was not winning the war there.
The image had hundreds of stakeholders – political parties, jirgas, militias, drug cartels, civil services, police, local army, foreign armies, central government, local governments, media, religious groups, tribal chiefs, NGOs, et al - denoted as points in the image. The points were joined by a complex web of lines, which crossed, crisscrossed and double crossed across the image, sending brains into a state of tizzy.
Now imagine if we were to do a similar stakeholder analysis for J&K state, what would be the end product? Would a power point image depicting our situation be really different than that of Afghanistan?
Quite likely, our image will also be a complex web of varied actors, joined and separated by relationships, shared visions and disagreements. Lines would also show alignments. Some would symbolize disagreements. Some points and lines would show multiple visions, multiple relations and multiple loyalties.
In a nutshell, we may have to refer to the standard stakeholder analysis guidebook, which has a disclaimer: stakeholder analysis is not a helpful tool in understanding stakeholders and their stakes when the subjects - barring a few exceptions - are a free floating lot!
To have a complex stakeholder analysis image is bad in itself. A simpler image is a depiction of how simple and less complex our life is - as simple as that. An image to the contrary, obviously, refers to the contrary.
Jammu & Kashmir’s problem is that its stakeholder analysis gets all the more complex with each passing year. Every year there is a new addition of stakeholders, stakes and their relationships. Our collective catastrophe is aggravating. Kashmiri people are losing their spirit. There is a strong feeling that it is time to make a new beginning. There are some irreparable losses too. Some will take a long time to overcome.
We have talked a lot about the economic and social costs of the raging conflict and political instability J&K is in since decades. That is a colossal loss, we all know. But can we quantify the spiritual and psychological loss we are suffering?
Living a life of uncertainty and darkness for sixty long years – even longer than that – is a human catastrophe. A lack of certainty about the future is breeding sick minds in Kashmir. A lack of direction is breeding a strong sense of pessimism. Perpetual insecurity is breeding newer kind of disorders, which are impacting people’s genes. Psychological disorders are manifesting in physiological problems – which no research has been able capture or seek to fix so far. And it has not something to do with one generation or two alone; we are passing on adapted abnormalities through our genes to our coming generations too. It is a kind of epidemic which we need to talk about now.
Lately, the Muftis have been calling the pro-azadi groups to join hands for a ‘common cause’. The latter have shrugged off the suggestion. Mirwaiz Umar asked Geelani to come along. The latter too chose to take own path. Looking broadly, there are hardly any alignments or broad agreements to see in Kashmir today. People, groups and parties are disintegrating. A chain reaction of sorts is making the larger political goal look fuzzy. The irony is that Kashmir now has so many political voices, often working at cross purposes, that achieving political goals has become difficult. It is a party time for the foreign ruler.
In an environment where the mighty ruler can’t be overcome by force or by self ruin (like hartals) can disparate political voices help achieve political justice? Is there nothing in political terms that Geelani, Mirwaiz, Abdullahs, Muftis, Yasin, Sajjad, Shabir, Nayeem etc. can agree on? Is their vision for their land so disparate that they can’t even begin from one point?
Thinking of the impossible, sometimes, isn’t too naïve. The situation in Jammu & Kashmir - in particular the Kashmir Valley and the Muslim majority districts in Jammu – has reached a point which demands an honest introspection by the state’s key political players. And, finally, action.
What are the hurdles that come in the way of realizing the common dream of a politically free and economically sovereign Jammu & Kashmir? Between the extremes of political positions, are in-between political tangibles impossible to conceive? And what are the differences, by the way? Political? Personal?
What are the complexities? Are they fixations? Obsessions? Clash of ideologies? Clash of egos? Or a mix of these?
Disagreement of thought and approaches is a natural trait of the human race. There can be no utopia where all the people agree with each other all the times in all the circumstances. Disagreement is but natural.
Agreements over a broad range of issues amongst a broad spectrum of political thought are easier said than done, but not impossible.
Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah’s long struggle to reclaim J&K’s lost political sovereignty came to naught for many reasons. One reason had, of course, some thing to do with his political ambitions. Second was the polity itself. Whenever he was imprisoned by New Delhi, replacements were always handy. Did Sadiq, Mir Qasim, Ghulam Muhammad Shah and others come from the moon? Is today’s political environment any different?
If we deeply analyse J&K’s political environment, we realize the political status quo is entrenched as never before. There was a time when finding a replacement to a particular political formation in Srinagar wasn’t that easy. Today there is a wide array of political forces to choose from.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s vision of a political utopia is not bad in itself. But do today’s circumstances support overnight shift to such a political system? What about application of hikmah, which has been applied since ages by Muslim scholars, conquerors and leaders? The political system which the Abdullahs and the Muftis are part of can’t be a recipe for stability. The unjust political status quo in J&K can’t be a solution. An idea for political utopia doesn’t work in today’s world of acute interdependence and softer borders either.
A time has come when Kashmiris’ decades-old suffering must go. A time has arrived when its people desperately need a life of political freedom, dignity, friendship and a mutually beneficial engagement with its neighbors. There has to be a new relation based on shared visions and interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)