**Quote:**World Bank expert upholds India’s position on Baglihar](World Bank expert upholds India’s position on Baglihar - The Economic Times)
DEVESH KUMAR
TIMES NEWS NETWORK THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2006 03:42:08 AM]
NEW DELHI: In what could be described as a major diplomatic victory for India, a World Bank-appointed expert has, in the “draft final determination’’ submitted by him, upheld New Delhi’s position on the Baglihar hydro-electric project being built on river Chenab in Jammu and Kashmir.
The dispute between the two sides arose after Pakistan approached the World Bank, which is financing the project, on January 15 last year with its complaint that India, during the course of its construction, had violated the Indus Water Treaty.
Pakistan alleged that India had unilaterally increased the height of the dam, and also questioned plans to construct sluice gates beneath the pondage, arguing that it was not needed to produce electricity. The gate’s design was also objected to.
Using these alterations as its platform, Pakistan lodged a complaint with the World Bank under Article IX (2) of the Indus Water Treaty, signed between the two countries way back in 1960.
Seized with the matter, the World Bank on May 12 last year appointed Prof Lafitte as the ‘neutral expert’ to adjudicate the dispute between the two sides. While the penultimate hearing on the issue was conducted at Paris on October 4-5, the proceedings are likely to be wound up in Washington towards the end of this month.
Prof Lafitte is currently a professor at the prestigious Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne (Switzerland).
India has constituted a high-level team, comprising lawyers, experts and bureaucrats associated with the water resources ministry, to represent its case before the arbitrator. And the team, it appears, has performed its job commendably, if one were to go by the contents of the ‘draft final determination’, a euphemism for interim report, copies of which have been submitted to both India and Pakistan.
“The draft final determination, while rejecting Pakistan’s contention, has upheld our position,’’ pointed out a senior water resources ministry official.
Water resources minister Saifuddin Soz, when contacted by ET, refused to comment on the draft report. “Our case is being argued very strongly and forcefully by our team of experts. The team comprises very able and qualified experts, including lawyers of the eminence of Mr Fali Nariman,’’ he said, adding, “We hope that the arbitrator’s final report will not disappoint us. We have a very strong case.’’
Being touted as the lifeline to the poverty-stricken Doda district of Jammu and Kashmir, the Baglihar project, when completed, is expected to change the economic profile of the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reportedly Pakistan Government has refused to comment on the draft report but according to clauses in the treaty, Pakistan may have to bear the cost of Nuetral expert as well.
the entire expenses of the Neutral Expert will have to be borne by the country against which the decision goes. Article 10 of Part 2 of Annexure-F states the following:
**Quote:**10. Each Party shall bear its own costs. The remuneration and the expense of the Neutral Expert and of any assistance that he may need shall be borne initially as provided in Part 3 of this Annexure and eventually by the Party against which his decision is rendered, except as, in special circumstances, and for reasons to be stated by him, he may otherwise direct. He shall include in his decision a direction concerning the extent to which the costs of such remuneration and expenses are to be borne by either Party.
Isn’t it the time that some heads in WAPDA & Indus water comission must roll over this Fiasco. What exactly is this treaty which outrightly favors India in every instance and why did Pakistan agree to forego its rights as a lower riparain on three rivers? We have always been taught in schools that it was a major diplomatic achievement of Pakistan Government of the time, the claim which seems extremely frivolus.