All rivers in Northern India originate from the Himalayas. Five of them run through the Indian Territory and finally flow down Pakistan disgorging in the Indian Ocean. Water being of immense importance, the two countries came to an agreement over the sharing of water of these rivers with the mediation of the World Bank in 1960. Some of our observers and commentators have raised a finger of accusation towards the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru for having given many concessions to Pakistan at the cost of national interests by signing the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) under the aegis of the World Bank. The Treaty stipulates that differences between the two states on any aspect of water distribution will be referred to the World Bank and settled through that agency, of course, procedures have been laid down. Soon after signing the Treaty, Pakistan slipped into the habit of raising unfounded objections at every step and invoking the decisions or arbitration of the World Bank. More recently, she has rushed to the WB with the complaint that India is utilizing the waters of Kishanganga and Chenab for constructing hydroelectric power stations in violation of the IWT. India also brought the matter to the notice of the WB and, following the procedures laid down in the Treaty, sought for the advice of Neutral Expert. The WB, acting arbitrarily, has taken up India’s suggestion for Neutral Expert and at the same time has consented for the establishment of a Court of Arbitration demanded by Pakistan. In simple words, the WB is running two approaches simultaneously, which, according to us, is fraught with legal lacuna. The Court of Arbitration option will be considered only when the Neutral Expert fails to deliver the goods. Two measures that should normally follow in sequence cannot be taken up simultaneously as that is in contravention of the procedure. Quite naturally India has objected to WB’s decision and conveyed her resentment.
The WB has to remain within its limits that are prescribed by the Treaty. Just trying to keep both sides happy at the cost of legalities of the case is not at all desirable. We hope the WB will see reason in what India is saying and take a natural course of addressing the complaints. The question is what is the pressure on WB to ignore the procedural methodology and jump on to an arbitrary decision that is not acceptable to one of the two parties? WB cannot behave in a partisan manner otherwise it will lose its credentials with disputing parties.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel