The multiplicity of problems, more often than not, causes tension to people of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Among matters of socio-economic importance are sky-high food prices and infuriating bills of electricity and gas.
“What gets on our nerves nowadays is the latest decision of the government to raise power rate up to 20 per cent by instalment in a couple of months. The Pakistan Post has already doubled the ordinary envelope’s price from four to eight rupees,” say the repugnant elders. In such circumstances, they regard water as their number one problem for purposes of cooking food, drinking and growing vegetables and fruit. Men and women from various urban and rural areas of the country doing jobs in public and private sectors and living in the twin cities agree to the view that the need for building new small and big dams for cultivation of food grains and generation of electricity has become more urgent than before. This feeling has spiritually brought them on one platform as Pakistanis — not Balochs, Pushtuns, Sindhis, Punjabis and so on. Already disgusted at imposition of anything by violent means, whether it’s religious or mundane, the people dislike compulsion, which amounts to exploitation and oppression. That’s why they say the building of dams by India in violation of the Indus Water Treaty is against the principles of socio-economic justice, democratic norms and human rights. Is such a wicked act not water terrorism? They assert in their discussion that any form of terrorism, for instance depriving us of our legal share of water, is tantamount to terror, which affects the common man’s life. The citizens express their fear that Baglihar hydro-electric project along the River Chenab in the Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir will deprive their country’s wheat-bowel province of Punjab of vital irrigation water. The controversial dam violates the World Bank brokered 1960 treaty, which governs the sharing of common river waters. “Why should we be deprived of our share of 321,000 acre feet of water during the three months of Rabi season and face far-reaching effects on our agriculture,” argue the educated old and young men of Mirpur, Rawat, Mandra and Gujar Khan, who earn livelihood by plying taxi-cabs in the federal capital. Non-availability of irrigation water significantly reduces the yield, or causes crop failures if India goes to the maximum capacity in times of need in our homeland, say the area farmers. How relevantly they recall a last year’s announcement of Indian water resources minister that the irrigation and hydroelectric potential of the country’s western rivers would be harnessed to the fullest. He had said two more projects — at Burser on River Chenab and at Ujjh on a tributary of River Ravi — were in pipeline. Has the neighbour regularly sent the daily flow data of hydrological sites on the Indus Basin, along with flood warnings, to us as required of her under the treaty, the patriotic citizens ask one another. An analyst rightly pointed out that Professor Raymond Lafitte, an expert appointed by the World Bank, with typical Swiss finesse managed to weave an elusive formula that appeared to appease both the parties. The expert overruled all the objections of Pakistan to the dam, except for asking India to lower the height of the 144.5 metre-dam by one-and-a-half metres. The so-called neutral expert had, “In effect, produced a fine-cut gem that gave out a different glow depending on which facet one looked it. It was this quality that prompted each side to claim that its claim had been upheld.” According to the treaty, India is allowed to build a reservoir on the River Chenab only if it does not interrupt the flow of water to Pakistan. A farmer, who visited Islamabad the other day, angrily said that 20,000 cusecs shortfall in the River Chenab was the result of water aggression by India in the shape of Baglihar Dam constructed on it. Similarly, this scribe was startled to hear from two media persons of Dhaka that the people of Bangladesh are worried over India’s dam scheme being executed in violation of bilateral water sharing agreements. Two major rivers of former East Pakistan, Surma and Kushiarra, which are lifeline of the Sylhet region, will get a blow from the under-construction Tapaimukh dam on the Barrak River in Manipur state. The area, known for tea gardens and tropical forests, will turn into a barren wasteland. That’s why the common man there feels terrified because his economic well-being depends upon the river system. One is not surprised to conclude from constant interaction with the citizens of Rawalpindi and Islamabad that Indian dual policy has exasperated them in the same way as it has created anger and mood of protest in the minds of the masses of Dhaka and Sylhet and other towns. After all, the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh in many ways think alike against oppression by breach of water sharing accords. Most of the people seem to be making up their mind to protest against water terrorism. They want all democracy claimers to pressure Delhi for justice to masses of neighbouring countries.
“What gets on our nerves nowadays is the latest decision of the government to raise power rate up to 20 per cent by instalment in a couple of months. The Pakistan Post has already doubled the ordinary envelope’s price from four to eight rupees,” say the repugnant elders. In such circumstances, they regard water as their number one problem for purposes of cooking food, drinking and growing vegetables and fruit. Men and women from various urban and rural areas of the country doing jobs in public and private sectors and living in the twin cities agree to the view that the need for building new small and big dams for cultivation of food grains and generation of electricity has become more urgent than before. This feeling has spiritually brought them on one platform as Pakistanis — not Balochs, Pushtuns, Sindhis, Punjabis and so on. Already disgusted at imposition of anything by violent means, whether it’s religious or mundane, the people dislike compulsion, which amounts to exploitation and oppression. That’s why they say the building of dams by India in violation of the Indus Water Treaty is against the principles of socio-economic justice, democratic norms and human rights. Is such a wicked act not water terrorism? They assert in their discussion that any form of terrorism, for instance depriving us of our legal share of water, is tantamount to terror, which affects the common man’s life. The citizens express their fear that Baglihar hydro-electric project along the River Chenab in the Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir will deprive their country’s wheat-bowel province of Punjab of vital irrigation water. The controversial dam violates the World Bank brokered 1960 treaty, which governs the sharing of common river waters. “Why should we be deprived of our share of 321,000 acre feet of water during the three months of Rabi season and face far-reaching effects on our agriculture,” argue the educated old and young men of Mirpur, Rawat, Mandra and Gujar Khan, who earn livelihood by plying taxi-cabs in the federal capital. Non-availability of irrigation water significantly reduces the yield, or causes crop failures if India goes to the maximum capacity in times of need in our homeland, say the area farmers. How relevantly they recall a last year’s announcement of Indian water resources minister that the irrigation and hydroelectric potential of the country’s western rivers would be harnessed to the fullest. He had said two more projects — at Burser on River Chenab and at Ujjh on a tributary of River Ravi — were in pipeline. Has the neighbour regularly sent the daily flow data of hydrological sites on the Indus Basin, along with flood warnings, to us as required of her under the treaty, the patriotic citizens ask one another. An analyst rightly pointed out that Professor Raymond Lafitte, an expert appointed by the World Bank, with typical Swiss finesse managed to weave an elusive formula that appeared to appease both the parties. The expert overruled all the objections of Pakistan to the dam, except for asking India to lower the height of the 144.5 metre-dam by one-and-a-half metres. The so-called neutral expert had, “In effect, produced a fine-cut gem that gave out a different glow depending on which facet one looked it. It was this quality that prompted each side to claim that its claim had been upheld.” According to the treaty, India is allowed to build a reservoir on the River Chenab only if it does not interrupt the flow of water to Pakistan. A farmer, who visited Islamabad the other day, angrily said that 20,000 cusecs shortfall in the River Chenab was the result of water aggression by India in the shape of Baglihar Dam constructed on it. Similarly, this scribe was startled to hear from two media persons of Dhaka that the people of Bangladesh are worried over India’s dam scheme being executed in violation of bilateral water sharing agreements. Two major rivers of former East Pakistan, Surma and Kushiarra, which are lifeline of the Sylhet region, will get a blow from the under-construction Tapaimukh dam on the Barrak River in Manipur state. The area, known for tea gardens and tropical forests, will turn into a barren wasteland. That’s why the common man there feels terrified because his economic well-being depends upon the river system. One is not surprised to conclude from constant interaction with the citizens of Rawalpindi and Islamabad that Indian dual policy has exasperated them in the same way as it has created anger and mood of protest in the minds of the masses of Dhaka and Sylhet and other towns. After all, the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh in many ways think alike against oppression by breach of water sharing accords. Most of the people seem to be making up their mind to protest against water terrorism. They want all democracy claimers to pressure Delhi for justice to masses of neighbouring countries.
Comments
Post a Comment