Civic polls: Reasseration of democratic process

By Ghazanfar Butt

The successful conduct of the civic polls in Jammu and Kashmir has been one of the significant achievements of the Peoples Democratic Party-Congress coalition Government. It has also been a victory for the people of the State who have decided to ignore the threat by militant organizations not to participate in the elections

The civic elections were held after a lapse of 27 years. The State Government was contemplating holding the elections to local bodies for over a decade. There was a school of thought which felt that civic elections should be held before the Parliament and Assembly elections in 1996. But many felt that if there was violence in the State during the civic elections, it would be very difficult to hold the Parliamentary or Assembly elections in 1996. The Central Government was keen that an elected Government should assume office in the State, the most appropriate authority to combat militancy was an elected Government. The holding of Parliamentary and Assembly election got priority and civic elections were deferred.

Following the announcement of civic elections this year, the militant organizations in the State warned people not to take part in the polls. The Hizbul Mujahideen put up posters with warnings in several villages. Several outfits, including the Syed Ali Shah Geelani led All Parties Hurriyat Conference came out with a boycott call. Joining Geelani were the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, the Democratic Freedom Party and the United Jehad Council. The JKLF Chief Yasin Malik and the Democratic Freedom Party leader Shabbir Shah led processions asking people not to cast their vote. The Kashmir Bar Association and the Jamiat-e-Ahlihadees joined in the anti-poll campaign.

Unlike the Parliament and Assembly elections in 1996 and 2002, there was little tension in the State during the civic elections this year. On hindsight, it looks as if the people had made up their mind to stand up to the militants. The consensus was that, time had come for the people to send a message to the authorities that they were ready to assume their democratic responsibilities.

The Peoples' Democratic Party and the Congress, a part of the State Government which decided to hold the civic elections, were expected to participate in the polls. The BJP has been keen to make a good showing in the Jammu region to re-establish its claim to popularity which had received a drubbing during the Lok Sabha polls in 2004. In the Kashmir region, the National Conference had to demonstrate that it had a strong following among the people. The National Conference President Omar Abdullah said that "conditions were hostile to us; still we have decided to take on Mufti Sayeed on the electoral turf".

The trend was set in the first phase of the polls in the north Kashmir districts of Baramullah and Kupwara. People came out with quiet determination to cast their votes which touched over 70 percent in many areas, as compared to less than five percent in the Assembly and Lok Sabha elections in 1996. "These elections have nothing to do with the Kashmir problem. We came out to vote because we want an end to our day-to-day problems", said a voter in Sopore (Indian Express 30/1). The PDP-Congress combine emerged winner in the Baramullah and Kupwara districts.

The decision of Omar Abdullah to participate in the polls turned out to be a right one. The National Conference secured 41 of the 68 seats in the Srinagar Municipal Corporation during the second phase of the elections. The Peoples' Democratic Party got 17 seats, while the Congress had to be satisfied with six and the independents won four. What was significant was that the voter participation had crossed 20 percent in Srinagar as compared to five percent in the Assembly elections in 2002. In Jammu, the Congress could win only 27 seats in the -71 member Municipal Corporation. None of the other major parties - the National Conference (6), BJP (25) or the PDP (2) were in a position to lead in the Jammu Corporation. The suspense ended when seven Independent Corporators decided to extend unconditional support to the Congress-PDP combine.

In the third phase held in Pulwama and Anantnag the PDP and the Congress won a clear majority. Over 44 percent of the voters participated, the turnout of the voters being 34 percent in Anantnag and 55 per cent in Pulwama. The PDP made a clean sweep in the Municipal Committee of Shopian and Bijbehara. The PDP also gained control of the Anantnag Municipal Council bagging 11 of the 21 seats.

In the fourth phase, voter turnout was 71 percent in Ganderbal, 81 per cent in Khansahib, 78 percent in Budgam, 68 percent in Magam and 65 percent in Charar-e-Sharief. The PDP secured Ganderbal and the Congress-PDP combine secured Charar-e-Sharief. In the next phase the Congress emerged as a single largest party in the Udhampur Municpal Committee securing 7 out of the 17 seats. BJP was a close second with six seats. In that phase, the Congress-PDP combine secured a majority in five civic bodies, the National Conference in two and the NPP in one.

When the final counts are made, all the political parties in the State have established their dominance in certain parts of the State: the National Conference in Srinagar, People's Democratic Party and the Congress in the rest of Kashmir Valley, and the BJP and the Congress in the Jammu region.

The successful holding of civic elections does not mean an end to violence. The elected member of the National Conference-- Mohammad Maqbool Shah Khaksar -- who was tipped to be the Mayor of Srinagar -- was gunned down on February 8. The previous day, the elected member of the PDP of Beerwah Municipal Committee - likely to be elected the Chairman -- Ghulam Mohiuddin Mir, was killed. Terrorists will try their best to frustrate the efficient functioning of the civic bodies. Govt. may thus have to provide security cover to the elected councillors and corporators.

One expects that the State and Central Governments will delegate authority and resources to the local bodies to meet the expectations of the people. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh feels that "the State can benefit immensely from revitalization of local Government and decentralization of administration". The State of Jammu and Kashmir has demonstrated that it is possible to implement the democratic process in difficult conditions. One hopes that enough funds will be provided to the local bodies and they will be free to function efficiently.

In the final analysis People of Jammu and Kashmir will give the most effective answer to the militants. The civic elections are a demonstration of the democratic process, and the assertion of the right to elect their representatives by the people. It is worthwhile recalling that militancy started in the State in the late eighties, following perceived manipulation of Assembly elections. With re-assertion of the free electoral process and effective functioning of representative democracy, people of Jammu and Kashmir will give the most effective answer to militants and terrorists. 2005 will then go down as a watershed in Jammu and Kashmir. - (ADNI)

Baglihar dispute a stream of conflict

By Subhashis Mittra

The vexed Baglihar hydro power project on the Chenab river in Jammu and Kashmir seems to be moving into the realm of a third-party arbitration, with the Pakistan Government approaching the World Bank for appointing a 'neutral expert' to resolve the latest India-Pakistan dispute.

A day after Islamabad moved the World Bank, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said that Baglihar was now one of the dispute between India and Pakistan that required resolution for improvement in relations."

The development on the Baglihar project is not good and it should have been resolved between the two countries" Musharraf said as he suggested a 'pragmatic approach' to improve relations between the two countries.

Under the Indus Water Treaty, 1960, three rivers --- Sutlej, Ravi and Beas --- were allocated to India; while three other rivers --- Chenab, Jhelum and Indus --- were allocated to Pakistan. The treaty allows India to have 'non-consumptive' projects that do not consume any water, like hydro-electric projects, on the rivers allocated to Pakistan.

Now, with Islamabad sending the request, the World Bank will appoint a neutral expert to go into the dispute. This will be approved by the two countries. And, if they don't agree on the expert or his findings, the World Bank may appoint a court of arbitration.

According to World Bank expert and authority on the Treaty, Salman Salman, Pakistan's reference for arbitration could end up opening a "Pandora's Box' with the dispute prolonging for years.

Describing the Baglihar hydel-power project as "Kashmir's jugular vein and flagship of its future prosperity", Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Sayeed said his Government would pursue the project.

However, the World Bank has said that it was not a 'guarantor' of the Treaty concluded by India and Pakistan on September 19, 1960. The Bank said in a statement posted on its website that it is a signatory to the Treaty for certain specified purposes. Many of the purposes for which the World Bank signed the Treaty have been completed. There are now three remaining responsibilities for the World Bank under the Treaty relating to settlement of differences and disputes.

As per the World Bank, the disagreements on the interpretation of the Treaty fall under three categories: questions are examined by the Permanent Indus Commission; differences by a Neutral Expert; and disputes by a Court of Arbitration.

According to the Treaty, the remaining responsibilities of the World Bank are role for it in the appointment of a neutral expert and first step under the Treaty is to resolve any 'question' through the Permanent Indus Commission itself.

If the 'question' is not resolved there, it becomes a 'difference' and is referred to a neutral expert, to be appointed by the two countries, or by a third party agreed upon by the two countries. In the absence of an agreement on the name of a neutral expert, the World Bank, in consultation with the two countries, would make the appointment.

"The decision of the neutral expert on all matters within his competence shall be final and binding," the Treaty says.

The Treaty provides for a role for the World Bank in the establishment of Court of Arbitration. If the 'difference' should be treated as a 'dispute', then a Court of Arbitration would be established.

Even as the World Bank is saddled with the task of bridging over Baglihar's troubled waters, Pakistan is of the view that construction of the project violates the treaty and will rob Pakistan of Chenab water.

Experts in India, however, do not buy the argument and feel Pakistan's objections are political and not technical.

On Pakistan's argument that the Chenab water is a reservoir, India does not agree and says it is a run of the river project. New Delhi is also not prepared to stop construction, as desired by Islamabad, which also wants that the issue be sort out first. New Delhi is also opposed to any change in the design as suggested by its neighbour.

Thus, it appears that the controversy over the Baglihar hydropower project on the Chenab river in Jammu and Kashmir is far from over.

When Indian and Pakistani officials had met in New Delhi last year, a breakthrough appeared to be in sight after hard negotiations on the contentious project, bogged down in dispute for the last five years.

Both the sides had discussed "all issues" with an "open mind" showing respect to each other's assessments and New Delhi claimed to have taken them very close to resolution. Islamabad too said the talks have concluded in a "win-win" situation. But, experts were skeptical.They felt that the dispute is all but resolved.

The dispute began in 1999, when Pakistan first cried foul over that it thought was a violation of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT). But, suddenly after the meeting of the officials from both sides, it looked like being settled.

The news made the worried people on both sides of the border happy, said a Pakistani daily had reported in its editorial.

Experts feel the only way to resolve the matter will be to call in neutral foreign experts as laid out in the Treaty. But that may be worse from India's point of view than setting the issue with Pakistan bilaterally. Perhaps, that is the reason why India has reportedly not liked Pakistan's decision to take the Baglihar dam issue to the World Bank.

Pakistan had raised objections to the Baglihar hydroelecric project four years ago and since then the issue has been a sticking point in annual meetings of the Indus Commission. In the meeting in Islamabad in 2002, Pakistan had indicated that it would be asking for neutral experts if its demand of the visit to the project site was not met. Then Pakistan served India with a note for appointment of neutral experts in May last year. The issue again came up during the talks in New Delhi in 2003.

At the last year's meeting, India maintained that Pakistan could not seek appointment of netural observers until the technical aspects of the project were discussed between the sides. The insistence by the Indian side not to appoint netural experts is seen by observers as yet another attempt to buy time for completing the project.

Accusing India of dragging its feet over the Baglihar issue since May 1999, when Islamabad first objected to its design, another Pakistani daily said that new Delhi postponed almost half a dozen times inspection tours of the project site that Pakistan had requested under the Treaty.

"The delaying tactics by India nothing but time-taking strategy," the daily in its report.

Brushing aside such remarks, India, however, maintains that the technical design of the project was well within the provisions of the Treaty and national and international practices.

Pakistan believes that the Baglihar project, which provides for submerged gated-spillways, is in breach of the 1960 Treaty. These spillways would allow India to increase the storage capacity far beyond what is allowed to India under the pact.

Islamabad's main concern is that the structure would provides India the capability to manipulate flow of water to Pakistan's disadvantage. Therefore, prevailing acute water shortages in the Indus basin could be one of the serious adverse consequences for Pakistan.

The Indus Water Treaty was signed under the good offices of the World Bank at Karachi by Mohammed Ayub Khan, the then President of Pakistan and Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Indian Prime Minister and W A B Illif of the World Bank in 1960.

Thus, history turned a full circle when Pakistan's Minister of State for Finance Umer Ayub Khan signed the petition to World Bank. Umer is son of former Pakistan Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub Khan and grandson of Ayub Khan, who had linked the Treaty.

Under the Treaty, Pakistan has exclusive use of the Indus the Chenab and the Jhelum rivers, except that upper riparian India can make hydro-electricity from them and use them as navigational facility. India on its part has similar rights over the Beas, the Sutlej and the Ravi, the eastern tributaries. But for both these "permitted" uses, water has to be collected in reservoirs.

Had relations been cordial between India and Pakistan, the reservoirs could be built through mutual consultations and joint approval of project designs as happens all the time among upper-lower riparian states with treaty obligations.

Under the Treaty, India was entitled to construct a plant on the three western rivers (allocated to Pakistan for unrestricted use) for generation of hydel power if it did not construct spillways with submerged gates. Pakistan thought Baglihar had them over Chenab and objected. The underwater gates would raise the capacity of the dam beyond stipulated levels and thus deprive Pakistan of about 7,000 cusecs of water per day and completely disrupt supplies for an uninterrupted period of 26 days during the critical period of December-February.

Pakistan then connected Balighar with several other lesser known projects on the Indian side and projected a doomsday scenario of utter depredation in Pakistan.

For some, this was an issue on which Pakistan could declare war on India under international law. On the Indian side, there were hawks who said that Pakistan should be punished for infiltrating "terrorists" across the Kashmir border even if it meant a violation of the Treaty.

If resolution of water-related disputes is important for the process of normalisation, one project that can come on line immediately is the supply of surplus Pakistani electricity to India. Here it may be recalled that in mid-1990s, the offer was made and India went into negotiations but due to lack of political consensus and will the deal was called off. India did not then take the chance of linking Pakistan to itself as an ancillary economy. But, it can do so now since more and more Indians are now inclined to give priority to economics. Pakistan's economic straits to have forced it to think that it can survive next to India's big economy by benefitting from it.

Interestingly, the Treaty has survived for over four decades, despite wars and diplomatic stand-offs between the two countries.

According to Salman, the "fair Treaty" has remained only "one of its kind in the world" because it involved the most complex negotiations.

Most of the differences between India and Pakistan are at the political level and for that reason common people from both sides should not suffer. Both the sides should realise that water is a social issue and not a political one like Kashmir.

Perhaps, that is the reason why Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has contended that failure of talks on Baglihar issue will not stall the composite dialogue process. However, Musharraf believes there are linkages between economic and political issues between India and Pakistan and favours progress in tandem between confidence -building measures and the dialogue process.

(PTI Feature)