The implications of the final award of the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) in The Hague on the Kishanganga hydroelectric project on the river Jhelum in Kashmir go far beyond the resolution of this lingering dispute between India and Pakistan. The award offers some useful lessons for both countries in terms of utilisation of the water of their common rivers for economic development rather than wrangling over them. Both of them have umpteen internal problems - including interstate water-sharing rows - to deal with that should get priority. For India, an immediate upshot of this award is that it can complete the 330-megawatt hydropower project on the river Kishanganga (called Neelam in Pakistan). Islamabad's objection that the planned diversion of Kishanganga waters to another tributary of Jhelum under this project would restrict the flow of water to that country has been turned down. The ICA's decree that a minimum water flow of nine cubic metres per second (cumecs) should be maintained in the river below the project is acceptable to India. This verdict is also not unfair to Pakistan, given that it had demanded a minimum flow of only 10 cumecs - though it had also, for some untenable reasons, contended that this flow should ideally be 100 cumecs.
With this issue having been settled for good, after the similar resolution of the Baglihar dispute, the way now seems clear for New Delhi to plan more projects of non-consumptive nature on the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab, all three of which were allotted to Pakistan under the Indus water treaty. Islamabad must now realise that it is futile to seek to stop run-of-the-river projects on these rivers. The most notable of these is the Wular lake project, which involves the construction of a barrage on the Jhelum near Sopore to improve navigation. This apart, New Delhi should also take steps to better utilise the waters of the three other rivers - Sutlej, Beas and Ravi - which were allocated to India under the Indus treaty. India has been unable to harness most of these rivers' waters. Unresolved interstate water disputes and growing resistance from environment activists to constructing dams are also to blame. One striking case is the water-sharing row between Punjab and Haryana that prevents the construction of a Sutlej-Yamuna link canal. The surplus waters of the Sutlej are, consequently, flowing down to Pakistan instead of being used by Haryana.
Islamabad, too, has its share of problems. The extensive canal network in the sprawling Indus valley, one of the world's largest irrigation networks at the time of Partition, is now in poor shape for want of proper maintenance. Besides, Punjab and Sindh in Pakistan are constantly at loggerheads over water-sharing, with the latter accusing the politically dominant Punjab of usurping a much larger share of water than is legitimately due to it. Thus, it is in the larger interest of both New Delhi and Islamabad to concentrate on efficient management of water of their common rivers on their sides of the border rather than on prolonging the dispute.
