By Claude Arpi
As ‘emergent’ leaders returned from the
BRICS meeting in South Africa, PTI reported that Manmohan Singh had
ventured to ask the new Chinese President Xi Jinping to set up a joint
mechanism for the dams being built on the Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet
(known downstream as Siang and Brahmaputra).
|
According
to PTI: “Notwithstanding pledges to take the bilateral relationship to a
new level, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first meeting with new
Chinese President Xi Jinping has sought a joint mechanism to assess the
construction work on dams on Brahmaputra river in Tibet.” That sounds
good, but is it enough?
Talking to the journalists traveling
with him in the plane, the Prime Minister explained, “I took the
opportunity to raise the issue of trans-border river systems. I
requested the Chinese Government to provide a joint mechanism to enable
us to assess the type of construction activity that is going on in the
Tibetan Autonomous Region.”
Apparently, President Xi assured Dr
Singh that China was quite conscious of its responsibilities as well as
of the interest of the lower riparian countries.
The report further added: “As regards
the specific mechanism that he had asked, the Chinese President told him
that they would further look into it.”
One could ask, why just a ‘joint
mechanism’ and not a treaty on the lines of the Indus Waters Treaty
signed with Pakistan in 1960?
The Prime Minister seemed to have been
rather reticent to even bring the topic on the table: “As of now,
[India’s] assessment is that whatever activity that is taking place on
the Brahmaputra region in Tibet, it is essentially run-of-the-river
projects and therefore there is no cause of worry on our part.”
But what about the Sutlej and the Indus ?
On August 4, 2000, The Tribune reported a
strange event in the Kinnaur district of Himachal Pradesh: flash floods
washed away most of the bridges on the Sutlej, killing many in the
process.
The Chandigarh daily explained: “Even
three days after the disaster, the mystery of the flashfloods in the
Sutlej which wrecked havoc along its 200 kilometres in length in the
State, remains unresolved,” adding: “Experts are at a loss to understand
where the huge mass of water came from.”
Imagine a 50 feet high wall of water descending into the gorges of Kinnaur !
In a few hours, more than 100 persons
died, 120 kilometres of a strategic highway (Chini sector) was washed
away and 98 bridges destroyed. While traveling to the Spiti valley a few
days after the incident, I witnessed the extent of the damage.
Oddly, the details of the mishap were similar to others which had occurred in Arunachal Pradesh a week earlier.
A detailed study carried out a few
months later by Indian remote sensing agencies confirmed that the
release of excess water accumulated in the Sutlej and the Yarlung
Tsangpo basins in Tibet had led to the flooding.
On June 25, 2001, nearly a year later,
the weekly India Today published an article entitled ‘Made in China’:
“While the satellite images remain classified, officials of the Ministry
of Water Resources indicate that these pictures show the presence of
huge water bodies or lakes upstream in Sutlej and Siang [Brahmaputra]
river basins before the flash floods took place. However, these lakes
disappeared soon after the disaster struck Indian territory. This
probably means that the Chinese had breached these water bodies as a
result of which lakhs of cusecs of water were released into the Sutlej
and Siang river basins.”
It is not difficult to imagine what
could ‘naturally’ (or less naturally) happen if a large structure is
constructed north of the McMahon line during a time of conflict.
The only solution lies in bringing the
matter to the negotiating table. India and China should reach a
bilateral water agreement. If a river-water treaty has been signed
between India and Pakistan, why can’t a similar accord be found between
China and India (and why not Bangladesh), in order to assure a decent
life to all in the region
Further there is a Convention on the Law
of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses adopted by
the UN in 1997 (though not yet an international law, because it was not
ratified by enough nations); it could serve as a model for bilateral or
multilateral treaties/conventions with China and others.
Beijing does not usually like to be
‘constrained’ in the straitjacket of an international agreement, but the
new leadership will have to decide if China wants to be a ‘normal’
State, fully assuming responsibility as a neighbour or a rogue State
like North Korea.
According to Xinhua, the Indian Prime
Minister would have said that India, which “adheres to an independent
foreign policy, will not be used by the Tibetan (refugees) as a tool to
contain China.” This is fine, but there should be some reciprocity.
The PM would have added that India is
willing to make concerted efforts with China to show the world that they
are cooperative partners instead of rivals. A water bilateral agreement
would a first step.
In any case, the fruition of the
projected mega projects such the diversion of the Brahmaputra will
entirely depend on the new leadership in China. If he is wise (and let
us hope for the best), Xi Jinping will take into account the negative
environment and strategic impact of the mega-dams for the Indo-Chinese
relations.
A formal agreement/treaty, whether in
line with the 1997 UN Water Convention or any other formal agreement, is
the only solution which can give some guarantees to the lower riparian
States.
India should not be hesitant to demand what it is entitled to.
Source : Niti Central
Comments
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment, as it helps us to improve our articles...!