'We deliberately chose not to celebrate'

Q&A/ Saifuddin Soz

India doesn't have to beat its own drum for the Baglihar victory.

Pakistan is saying that India has no reason to cheer on the Baglihar report since the neutral expert has acceded to most of its points.

We deliberately chose not to get into celebration mode about the award since we did not want to give an impression that Pakistan had lost. The fact is, two years before Pakistan had sought third party mediation, India on its own had offered to reduce the height of Baglihar dam exactly by 1.5 metres, and that is the award too.

In spite of that, Pakistan chose to invite a third party and engage high profile foreigners and lawyers. The result is not very much different from what it would have been, had we chosen to settle it bilaterally.

So, are you seeing a new opening in Indo-Pak relations out of the Baglihar report?

The verdict is favourable to us in so many ways. First, it has put a final seal of approval on the Indus Water Treaty. Second, the neutral expert, who has reviewed about 13,000 dams all over the world, has found no fault with the spillway gates technology. The Pakistanis had objected to our design of the dam with spillway gates. These gates are basically meant to prevent silting of the power house.

This point going in our favour has opened up a lot of possibilities on the utilisation of river waters in Kashmir by us. Pakistan's objections to the Tulbul (navigation project on Jhelum) and Kishenganga hydel project are irrelevant now. The report has once again proved that mutual negotiations are the best way to resolve any issue between India and Pakistan.

But political parties in Kashmir - your own state - have been demanding scrapping of the Indus Water Treaty since the state's waters cannot be used for major projects under it?

They are wrong. The treaty is a time-tested one and it cannot be reversed. They too should be happy with this report. Now, we can complete Baglihar by December, or at the most by March next year, without incurring any extra cost. With this project alone, J&K will get 450 Mw power and there are many more possibilities.

As water is becoming scarce, we have seen the dangerous trend of inter-state water disputes arising all over India. How do you propose to deal with rising demands on water?

Long ago, in August 1980 to be precise, the government had drafted a perspective plan on water that had clearly said that surplus waters from states should flow to water deficit states. However, on the ground, this does not seem to be working. I am helpless as water is a state subject.

Last year, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh were fighting over water. I brought them to the negotiating table and we all decided to hold another meeting. But Andhra Pradesh went to court before it could be held. The same happened in Mullaperiyar "" Tamil Nadu agreed to pursue talks but retracted and approached the Supreme Court.

Six months ago, Goa and Karnataka came to me on the same issue. We all decided to hold talks and avoid assigning the task of arbitrating water distribution to a tribunal. Goa too agreed but then it suddenly went to the Supreme Court seeking directions for my ministry to set up a tribunal under the Inter-States Disputes Act.

Well, you are the minister, after all. What about nationalising water so that surplus waters flows to deficit states?

Last year, we debated this issue threadbare in the standing committee of Parliament on water resources. Opinion was unanimous that the Centre should be armed with the authority to implement equitable distribution of water. The committee even proposed that water be taken out of the state list and included in the concurrent list. I cannot make laws unless Parliament gives me directions on this.

Based on your experience in the ministry, what is your opinion on this?

I believe that the Centre should have more say in the distribution of water in the country. Right now, we only have the responsibility of setting up tribunals to settle inter-state disputes. Water should flow in all the states by virtue of their right.

Your ministry started Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP) to put irrigation projects in the country on the fast track. But in 10 years, only 50 projects could be completed: barely 3 million hectares in 10 years out of a target of 3 million hectares per annum.

That is not true. We have done 90 projects.

If you look at the KBK projects (Kalahandi-Bolangir-Koraput) in AIBP, you will find that no transaction has happened with the ministry in the last three years. Your ministry has not received any progress report from the state.

Is that so? I must find out. All I can say is we are transparent. (Asks his office for data on KBK projects: "How many KBK projects are there? What are we doing?")

Your target for this Budget year was to cover six lakh hectares under AIBP. What has been the achievement?

We hope to reach the target by July. AIBP is the only instrument now. If it doesn't succeed nothing will.

Why do these projects take so long, when the Metro has been able to set up rail tracks in days ?

The two cannot be compared. We can't decide for the states. And they are not slow by design. We have declared a kind of emergency for 31 districts under the prime minister's package for suicide-hit areas.

So, similar emergency does not prevail for KBK or drought prone areas in Uttar Pradesh where there are no suicides?

No, they are part of the 258 projects coming under AIBP. But the emergency is for 31 districts in four states. Their ministers are coming on February 20 for a meeting. They will be told to send a proposal and get approval. It is: do it or withdraw.

Though rehabilitation is the state's responsibility, can you explain the failure in the case of Narmada oustees?

Who says there was a failure? Did you go there? I would say you should check facts on the ground in Madhya Pradesh.