I first met Abrar Kazi during a five-day consultation on Kalabagh Dam in Lahore, back in 1998. The way he argued the Sindh case on this occasion was impressive to say the least. In fact, he was so impressive that by that end of the event even participants from different parts of Pakistan had to agree that the dam, however important it may be for the country’s survival, should only be built after consensus among all the four provinces.
That was almost a decade ago. Since then, Abrar Kazi has expanded the scope of his study manifold and has come up with even more solid and convincing arguments – in research papers and articles, as well as from the platform of Sindh Democratic Party (SDP) – to prove his case against Kalabagh Dam. So say that he sounds reason in whatever he says would be an understatement of the highest order.
To add to this is his humble disposition. Abrar Kazi across as a thorough gentleman, who not only respects difference of opinion but also wants to build bridges cutting across all divides, especially ethnic. These factors have helped him earn a respectable name among his fellow Sindhis, but he also wants the people of Punjab to understand and accommodate the viewpoint of others provinces.
Not only is Abrar Kazi’s integrity unchallengeable; he also possesses a beautiful heart. Despite his tough stance on Kalabagh Dam and all his bitterness for the Punjabi-dominated establishment, when I told him that I wanted to interview him as I respected his views on Kalabagh Dam, I could see tears rolling down his eyes. The event was Tenth Sustainable Development Conference, hosted in the second week of December by Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) in Islamabad. Excerpts of the interview taken on this occasion by The News on Sunday follow:
Mustafa Nazir Ahmed: Would you like to tell us something about your background?
Abrar Kazi: I was born on February 25, 1942, in the Garhi Yaseen ‘taluka’, which was a part of the Sukkur district at that time but is now a part of the Shikarpur district. My father was a civil servant and we were always on the move. Whenever he was posted to a new city, I had to take admission in a new school. I got my college education in Hyderabad, from where I did my BSc. After that, I studied aviation and got a job with Pakistan International Airlines (PIA). Later, I went to Jordan for about a decade in connection with a job. I finally returned to Pakistan and settled down in Hyderabad in late 1986.
MNA: How did you become an expert on water issues then?
AK: It is true that the water issue has never my area of formal education. Whatever expertise I have acquired is an outcome of extensive reading on this subject. Hyderabad was a stronghold of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) when I settled down in the city back in 1986 and ethnic riots were at their peak. This situation inspired me to wage a struggle for the rights of my fellow Sindhis, by taking part in social and political activities. As water was and still is a major issue of the Sindhis, I dedicated myself to doing research on this subject.
MNA: Were you never a part of the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD)?
AK: No. I came much later, in 1986, and was never formally associated with the MRD.
MNA: Can you share details of your published works on the water issue?
AK: Besides my book, entitled Kalabagh Dam: The Sindh Case, I have contributed numerous of articles on the water issue in Sindhi and English newspapers and journals. I also contributed a research paper for a Ford Foundation book, entitled ‘Haunting Shadows of Human Insecurity’, published in 2006. My article deals mainly with the water dispute between Pakistan and India, but also discusses the latter’s inter-provincial water disputes.
MNA: Is the application of international water laws different at different levels – for instance, between India and Pakistan, and between Punjab and Sindh? For example, when Pakistan becomes a lower riparian in water sharing with India, it objects to all the latter’s plans for not being consulted first, citing international water laws. However, when Sindh claims its rights as a lower riparian in its water disputes with Punjab, the same are ignored. Can you throw some light on this?
AK: The greatest water disputes have been settled by the United States Supreme Court, which has handed down some excellent judgments over the years in many cases pertaining to the water issue. Though these cases were fought between different states of the US, they related to the use of common rivers. Thus the parameters were set and the international law pertaining to the use of common rivers has evolved accordingly over the years. This law applies to common rivers, whether they are used by two countries or by two provinces or states within the same country. In short, the law does not make any distinction between the two. And this is the way it should be, both morally and legally. How these laws are applied – especially in a country like Pakistan, where even the Constitution is held in abeyance after every few years on one pretext or the other – is another thing. In simple words, Pakistan’s position in its water disputes with India is exactly the same as is of Sindh in its water disputes with Punjab. The laws are clear, but we have to do away with jugglery of words to implement them.
MNA: Can you tell us something more about the water laws?
AK: Basically, three are three major laws related to the water issue. One of them has been derived out of the British common law. It states that if a stream of flowing water is being used by people for personal use (not agricultural use), they have complete freedom to use it as much as they want. The second major law is that the upper riparian will always seek consent of the lower riparian before initiating any such project over the common rivers that may adversely affect the latter. This law ensures equitable distribution of water in future once the project has been completed. It has been derived from the Government of India Act, 1935, with relevant clauses in turn derived from the Canal and Drainage Act, 1871, which clearly states that consent of both the parties is required to initiate a new project over common rivers.
The third law, which is especially important in Pakistan’s context, states that the existing projects on a stream will always have preference in terms of allocation of water over the ones that are built later. Let me share the example of Sindh here! Sukkur Barrage was built in 1932, Kotri Barrage in 1954 and Guddu Barrage – which is located above Sukkur Barrage – in 1967. However, when water is released to Sindh, allocation of Sukkur Barrage should be met first though Guddu Barrage is located before it. Only after ensuring that the needs of Sukkur Barrage have been met, as it was the first one to be built, water should be released to Kotri Barrage. Similarly only after ensuring that the needs of Kotri Barrage have been met, water should be released to Guddu Barrage.
The reason for this is simple: the barrages which were built before others already had users when new barrages were constructed on the same stream of water. The logic is that existing users cannot be deprived of their right to water to accommodate new users. This is simple common sense, but it continues to generate a lot of controversy in Pakistan. A number of barrages in Punjab – Chashma, Jhelum, Taunsa to name a few – have been built after the ones in Sindh, but the dominant province allocates water to them without any regard for the older barrages and their users. All this is against the law.
MNA: Does Sindh itself follow this law?
AK: No. Even within Sindh, Guddu Barrage does not release water for the users of Sukkur Barrage without first ensuring that the needs of its own users have been met. In fact, the irrigation system in the province is a complete mess due to rampant corruption. Any release of water through canals should be advertised beforehand, so that the users can make the best use. But this is not the case in Sindh, as the irrigation department’s officials accept bribes to divert water to the land of the influential people.
MNA: Why is the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) so obsessed with Kalabagh Dam, despite global opposition to large dams?
AK: The reason why Wapda insists on Kalabagh Dam to the exclusion of everything else is simple and it is because of this reason that feasibility studies of new dams are not being conducted: no province other than Punjab accrues any economic benefits. Foreign investors were willing to explore coal in Thar, which would have generated an additional 1,000 megawatts of electricity for the country, but the project was shelved to deprive Sindh of its due revenue and of 300,000 jobs for its people. Despite availability of foreign investment, the Thar coal project was stopped by Mian Nawaz Sharif during his second tenure as prime minister, only in order to ensure that the excuse to build Kalabagh Dam remains. This is the biggest grievance of the people of Sindh. The decision to shelve this project was against the interests of all Pakistanis, not only of the people of Sindh alone. In short, Wapda nurtures a grudge against the Sindhis and does not want the centre of gravity to be shifted from Punjab to any other province.
By: Mustafa Nazir Ahmad
That was almost a decade ago. Since then, Abrar Kazi has expanded the scope of his study manifold and has come up with even more solid and convincing arguments – in research papers and articles, as well as from the platform of Sindh Democratic Party (SDP) – to prove his case against Kalabagh Dam. So say that he sounds reason in whatever he says would be an understatement of the highest order.
To add to this is his humble disposition. Abrar Kazi across as a thorough gentleman, who not only respects difference of opinion but also wants to build bridges cutting across all divides, especially ethnic. These factors have helped him earn a respectable name among his fellow Sindhis, but he also wants the people of Punjab to understand and accommodate the viewpoint of others provinces.
Not only is Abrar Kazi’s integrity unchallengeable; he also possesses a beautiful heart. Despite his tough stance on Kalabagh Dam and all his bitterness for the Punjabi-dominated establishment, when I told him that I wanted to interview him as I respected his views on Kalabagh Dam, I could see tears rolling down his eyes. The event was Tenth Sustainable Development Conference, hosted in the second week of December by Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) in Islamabad. Excerpts of the interview taken on this occasion by The News on Sunday follow:
Mustafa Nazir Ahmed: Would you like to tell us something about your background?
Abrar Kazi: I was born on February 25, 1942, in the Garhi Yaseen ‘taluka’, which was a part of the Sukkur district at that time but is now a part of the Shikarpur district. My father was a civil servant and we were always on the move. Whenever he was posted to a new city, I had to take admission in a new school. I got my college education in Hyderabad, from where I did my BSc. After that, I studied aviation and got a job with Pakistan International Airlines (PIA). Later, I went to Jordan for about a decade in connection with a job. I finally returned to Pakistan and settled down in Hyderabad in late 1986.
MNA: How did you become an expert on water issues then?
AK: It is true that the water issue has never my area of formal education. Whatever expertise I have acquired is an outcome of extensive reading on this subject. Hyderabad was a stronghold of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) when I settled down in the city back in 1986 and ethnic riots were at their peak. This situation inspired me to wage a struggle for the rights of my fellow Sindhis, by taking part in social and political activities. As water was and still is a major issue of the Sindhis, I dedicated myself to doing research on this subject.
MNA: Were you never a part of the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD)?
AK: No. I came much later, in 1986, and was never formally associated with the MRD.
MNA: Can you share details of your published works on the water issue?
AK: Besides my book, entitled Kalabagh Dam: The Sindh Case, I have contributed numerous of articles on the water issue in Sindhi and English newspapers and journals. I also contributed a research paper for a Ford Foundation book, entitled ‘Haunting Shadows of Human Insecurity’, published in 2006. My article deals mainly with the water dispute between Pakistan and India, but also discusses the latter’s inter-provincial water disputes.
MNA: Is the application of international water laws different at different levels – for instance, between India and Pakistan, and between Punjab and Sindh? For example, when Pakistan becomes a lower riparian in water sharing with India, it objects to all the latter’s plans for not being consulted first, citing international water laws. However, when Sindh claims its rights as a lower riparian in its water disputes with Punjab, the same are ignored. Can you throw some light on this?
AK: The greatest water disputes have been settled by the United States Supreme Court, which has handed down some excellent judgments over the years in many cases pertaining to the water issue. Though these cases were fought between different states of the US, they related to the use of common rivers. Thus the parameters were set and the international law pertaining to the use of common rivers has evolved accordingly over the years. This law applies to common rivers, whether they are used by two countries or by two provinces or states within the same country. In short, the law does not make any distinction between the two. And this is the way it should be, both morally and legally. How these laws are applied – especially in a country like Pakistan, where even the Constitution is held in abeyance after every few years on one pretext or the other – is another thing. In simple words, Pakistan’s position in its water disputes with India is exactly the same as is of Sindh in its water disputes with Punjab. The laws are clear, but we have to do away with jugglery of words to implement them.
MNA: Can you tell us something more about the water laws?
AK: Basically, three are three major laws related to the water issue. One of them has been derived out of the British common law. It states that if a stream of flowing water is being used by people for personal use (not agricultural use), they have complete freedom to use it as much as they want. The second major law is that the upper riparian will always seek consent of the lower riparian before initiating any such project over the common rivers that may adversely affect the latter. This law ensures equitable distribution of water in future once the project has been completed. It has been derived from the Government of India Act, 1935, with relevant clauses in turn derived from the Canal and Drainage Act, 1871, which clearly states that consent of both the parties is required to initiate a new project over common rivers.
The third law, which is especially important in Pakistan’s context, states that the existing projects on a stream will always have preference in terms of allocation of water over the ones that are built later. Let me share the example of Sindh here! Sukkur Barrage was built in 1932, Kotri Barrage in 1954 and Guddu Barrage – which is located above Sukkur Barrage – in 1967. However, when water is released to Sindh, allocation of Sukkur Barrage should be met first though Guddu Barrage is located before it. Only after ensuring that the needs of Sukkur Barrage have been met, as it was the first one to be built, water should be released to Kotri Barrage. Similarly only after ensuring that the needs of Kotri Barrage have been met, water should be released to Guddu Barrage.
The reason for this is simple: the barrages which were built before others already had users when new barrages were constructed on the same stream of water. The logic is that existing users cannot be deprived of their right to water to accommodate new users. This is simple common sense, but it continues to generate a lot of controversy in Pakistan. A number of barrages in Punjab – Chashma, Jhelum, Taunsa to name a few – have been built after the ones in Sindh, but the dominant province allocates water to them without any regard for the older barrages and their users. All this is against the law.
MNA: Does Sindh itself follow this law?
AK: No. Even within Sindh, Guddu Barrage does not release water for the users of Sukkur Barrage without first ensuring that the needs of its own users have been met. In fact, the irrigation system in the province is a complete mess due to rampant corruption. Any release of water through canals should be advertised beforehand, so that the users can make the best use. But this is not the case in Sindh, as the irrigation department’s officials accept bribes to divert water to the land of the influential people.
MNA: Why is the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) so obsessed with Kalabagh Dam, despite global opposition to large dams?
AK: The reason why Wapda insists on Kalabagh Dam to the exclusion of everything else is simple and it is because of this reason that feasibility studies of new dams are not being conducted: no province other than Punjab accrues any economic benefits. Foreign investors were willing to explore coal in Thar, which would have generated an additional 1,000 megawatts of electricity for the country, but the project was shelved to deprive Sindh of its due revenue and of 300,000 jobs for its people. Despite availability of foreign investment, the Thar coal project was stopped by Mian Nawaz Sharif during his second tenure as prime minister, only in order to ensure that the excuse to build Kalabagh Dam remains. This is the biggest grievance of the people of Sindh. The decision to shelve this project was against the interests of all Pakistanis, not only of the people of Sindh alone. In short, Wapda nurtures a grudge against the Sindhis and does not want the centre of gravity to be shifted from Punjab to any other province.
By: Mustafa Nazir Ahmad
0 comments:
Post a Comment