Beyond the cul-de-sac
All Kashmiri parties need to sit and chart a common agenda now
Arjimand Hussain Talib
Kashmir today has a moment of truth across the political divide - for the ruling National Conference (NC), for the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP), for the two factions of the Hurriyat Conference and others on their side. It is a moment of truth for any Baskhshis-or-G M Shahs-in-the-making too.
It is also a moment for Kashmir’s opinion makers to shun ambiguity and speak out of their heart.
The sacred blood of Kashmiri youngsters spilled on our roads today must remind everybody that it has been enough of political bluffing and politicking. It is a moment of sincere introspection by everybody - New Delhi, Islamabad, the Hurriyats, United Jehad Council (UJC), NC, PDP, just everybody.
For NC, it is a moment which seems to raise questions on its very existence. A party which formed the government in 2008 on the basis of some 25,000 votes it got in eight assembly segments of Srinagar out of some 700,000 eligible voters; it is a moment of real worry.
There are reasons to believe that the Chief Minister Omar Abdullah continues to remain anonymously on the Facebook. If so, he must be aware of the extremities of public mood against his party, government and his actions today.
Logically speaking, the options before Omar are limited today. If his government decides to take a cue from the recent National Conference’s political resolution on the restoration of autonomy he can’t do that because he rules with a coalition with the Congress Party. If the party today continues with its policy of ratifying New Delhi’s iron hand approach in dealing with the unrest, its political loss is surely going to aggravate. It has to think beyond for the sake of its political survival.
When it comes to the PDP, NC’s woes do not necessarily mean its advantage today. Since it came to power in 2004 it has had the advantage of a ‘feel good feeling’ about its rule among certain rural pockets in the valley. That ‘feel good’ feeling had something to do with the reigning in of the Special Operations Group (SOG) and creating a sense of security among the people in the country side. But that ‘feel good’ feeling for it is also withering away.
There are credible reports that New Delhi through some of its emissaries did explore the possibility of this party forming the government during the last few weeks. Credible sources also indicate that the PDP dismissed this probability. The party is understood to have set three pre-conditions for considering such a possibility - revocation of AFSPA, withdrawal of some forces from civilian areas and release of some political prisoners.
For New Delhi heeding to these demands at this moment looks improbable. Obviously, it would prefer offering such a political ‘package’ to those groups which challenge its rule altogether in the state. It is also highly improbable that the National Conference would take such an arrangement with grace, allowing huge political advantage to PDP.
New Delhi’s political position on and military actions in Kashmir stand seriously questioned at the international level today. There was a time when it won real sympathies from big powers when it showcased Islamic radicalism being at the heart of Kashmir’s political movement. As Kashmir’s political movement is getting increasingly peaceful again New Delhi is facing some real problems. Its political and economic investments in Kashmir also lie in tatters today. The street movement of the youngsters will not die down. It has no option other than to negotiate a new political arrangement with Srinagar today.
Although the two factions of the Hurriyat Conference enjoy clear political advantage in the current situation, this advantage could be short-lived. The problem is that while staying away from each other, they acquire some serious limitations in transforming this advantage into some meaningful political achievement. Their organizational limitations about embracing a purposeful dialogue and offering viable political and economic visions beyond the status quo are serious.
The second limitation of two Hurriyats is that they are today not in a position to greatly influence the people on the streets who go by their own wisdom and instincts in conveying their political aspirations.
The two individuals who are currently underground and are setting the protest calendars have limitations too. No matter their commitment to their political cause, they have limited political acumen to translate the strengths of the people’s street mobilisation into a tangible political achievement.
The people of Kashmir have yet again demonstrated that the political status quo to them is both unbearable and unacceptable. They have offered immense sacrifices, but there is a word of caution for the people charting protest calendars: they must not push people beyond a point. Moderation is key to every success.
A tangible political achievement which can bring Kashmiris the much-needed freedom from military oppression, political control, economic plunder and cultural onslaught could be brought about only if all the Kashmiri parties across the political divide come together to chart out a common minimum agenda. That would require personal egos to be shun. That would also require a realisation that monumental psychological, economic and physical suffering of the last six decades is too immense to be continued as such.
This line of thinking does not symbolise political idealism only. It is a real necessity for the Kashmiri nation today.
Political untouchability may satisfy personal egos of political figures but it will not help the cause of the Kashmiri nation. Any attempt by any political formation to create conditions for grabbing power at this point of time will be a monumental folly.
For a common ground some principles are important to agree on. Under no circumstances should this peaceful people’s movement transform into an armed movement. New Delhi, on its part, must publicly commit itself to a political position and process as set out by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in 1947. United Jehad Council (UJC) must renounce armed struggle and join the political process. The United Nations must be the principal organization overseeing demilitarisation and demobilization of arms. This process must accompany a dignified return of Kashmiri Pandits to their homes under UN supervision.
Such process also needs some more appreciations. One that Kashmir’s current relation with New Delhi is both unjust and unnatural. Two, absolute independence for Kashmir cannot come overnight. It will have to be a gradual process, with building of institutions, capacities and viable economic relations with its neighbors. An accession with Pakistan at this point of time is improbable too.
This approach could be possible only if Islamabad also commits itself to the principles that former President Gen. Parvez Musharraf voiced during his rule.
Kashmiris, on their part, need to appreciate and understand the challenges faced by Pakistan to its interests and existence. They need to remain sensitive to its water needs in any future political set up. They also need to remain sensitive to India’s geo-political interests towards its northern borders. Nothing will come in a single go. But, yes, if all Kashmiri parties shun egos and narrow political power ambitions, many things are possible.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Kishenganga Hydel Power Project
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)