Pakistan has decided to move the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) against the construction of the controversial Kishanganga Hydropower Project by India over Jhelum river in violation of 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.

The decision comes when Indians have completed the 22-km tunnel to divert Kishanganga (Neelum) waters to Wullar Lake and the work on the 330MW project is in progress for commissioning by 2016.

If completed, the project would severely affect Pakistan’s rights over the river, reduce the river flows into Pakistan and bring down the power generation capacity of the 969MW Neelum Jhelum Hydropower project near Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir, also projected to complete by 2016, by 20 per cent.

The Indus Water Commission pleaded in March last year to move the ICA but the government took more than 14 months to seriously consider the advice. The issue has been the part of the stalled composite dialogue but bilateral talks failed to resolve the conflict.

The Kishanganga project is about 160 kilometres upstream of Muzzafarabad and involves diversion of the Kishanganga or Neelum to a tributary of the Jhelum through a 22-km tunnel to divert water into the Jhelum river through Wullar Lake. This will result in drying up a long stretch of the river on the Pakistani side.

Pakistan first received reports about the Indian project in 1988 but India officially confirmed it in the mid-1990s. This was the beginning of water dispute between the two countries.

In the mid 1990s India started the construction of the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab river. In 2005, Pakistan sought the World Bank’s help to stop its construction.

The WB did not disallow India to carry out the project but sought a few modifications to ensure uninterrupted water flow to Pakistan under its quota.

In 2008, India suddenly reduced water flow of the Chenab river to damage our autumnal crops. While India continued to starve Pakistan by suspending its rightful quotas of water, foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, instead of showing concern over India’s conspiring of turning Pakistani rivers into desert, blamed Pakistan’s “mishandling” of the matter.

Qureshi may also be accused of unleashing his personal enthusiasm on the sensitive question of the resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue after the SAARC summit moot at Bhutan’s capital Thimphu. We are afraid this is wrong decision particularly after the WB arbitration on Baglihar Dam project.

The 1960 treaty does not envisage a situation arising out of projects for water storage and power generation and any arbitration will be a futile exercise.

The better option would be to aggressively pursue a diplomatic way out in the first instance. Failing this Pakistan can invoke the jurisdiction of the United Nations dispute-resolution mechanism on the plea that Indian projects would dry up Pakistani rivers and cause an incalculable loss to the country’s agriculture.

In case Pakistan plays its cards well, the UN General Assembly or the Security Council may issue a resolution that will be binding on India under the 1960 treaty that is an international law which must be respected. It is a matter of record that UN resolutions have settled bilateral disputes in the past.

Sat Sari Akal from Pakistan!

As a native of Pakistan – I am excited to have a sagacious leader at the helm of affairs next door. Especially as our countries have a history of bitter relations having fought three wars since our independence from Britain in 1947. We both claim the Himalayan region of Kashmir, which is divided between us.

Mr. Prime Minister, I feel it’s about time that we both re-visit the concept of ‘sous rature’, (a term usually translated as ‘under erasure)’ in our bilateral discussions. I am proposing a sous rature for Kashmir – because the conflict is inadequately represented thus far as a territorial issue. Since this is an important issue, I propose we keep it legible yet cross it out. And, going forward use a more accurate term; water conflict.

Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies, and in our case, a territorial dispute. Unless Kashmir’s link with water is addressed and resolved, these other crises may intensify leading to further political insecurity and conflict at various levels.

It is abundantly clear to most educated Pakistanis that the Kashmir dispute cannot be resolved until every Pakistani citizen is assured access to water – today, tomorrow and for times to come. I am hoping that in your second term you will demonstrate the courage expected of a ‘fair’ regional power and not insist on building dams that will deprive Pakistani farmers of vital water supplies.

Mr. Prime Minister, I am hoping that you will address the critical issue of the Tulbul Navigation project on Wular Lake in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir. I am sure you are aware of our position that this dam will disrupt the flow of water into the Jhelum River, which flows into Pakistan. This dam clearly violates the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. You must know that the World Bank-mediated 1960 Indus Water Treaty stipulates that we share the Indus River and its five tributaries – the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. Under the treaty, we received exclusive use of waters from the Indus and its westward flowing tributaries, the Jhelum and Chenab, while the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers were allocated for your country’s use.

Mr. Prime Minister in your haste to win this second term you have withheld millions of cubic feet of water upstream on the Chenab in Indian-administered Kashmir, and you are storing it in the massive Baglihar dam in order to produce hydro-electricity. Mr. Prime Minister you know it is in breach of the 1960 treaty. I know you decided to stop entertaining this discussion after the Mumbai attacks- but why are you punishing the poor farmers of Pakistan for the crimes committed by a few mercenaries?

We have heard your position that India has a right to ‘’run-of-the-river’’ projects but ask 10 independent scientists and they will confirm that the Baglihar dam reduces the flow of water to Pakistan in violation of the 1960 treaty. Come down to Pakistan and bring those World Bank appointed experts who had cleared the Baglihar project so they can understand the implication of their decision as well. If these experts are not blind- I am sure they will notice that the levels of both the river and groundwater have fallen substantially. Indeed, from our side this doesn’t even look like a river anymore; it is more like a puddle.

Mr. Prime Minister I don’t want to bore you with details, but the 1960 treaty guaranteed us 55,000 cusecs of water. Yet, this year we have received between 13,000 cusecs during the winter and a maximum of 29,000 cusecs during summer.

We have also heard the Indian argument for the Wular dam; that you will make a shallow 12 mile stretch of the river in order to ease “navigation” during the dry summer months. And that this is allowed under the 1960 treaty.

Let’s be honest Mr. Prime Minister- this is an open attempt to store water and control how much will be allowed to flow to Pakistan. It may not happen overnight – but there are no guarantees that you will continue to win elections in India for next 30-40 years.

Mr. Prime Minister- you may ignore this appeal but at least pay attention to more than 20 different UN bodies who have warned that the world may be perilously close to its first water war. Take these dam projects off the table and you will win the hearts and minds of Pakistanis. Moreover, you will bring the two nations closer to a more peaceful and prosperous coexistence.