Upreti, Trilochan, International Watercourses Law and Its Application ...

30 / International Watercourses Law and Its Application in South Asia Development and Codification of International Watercourses Law / 31displaced persons from the areas submerged and settlement ofthe amount of compensation to be paid to Rajasthan by Gujaratin lieu of those submerged areas affected by the construction ofKadana Dam. 40 In both cases, water projects were developed insuch a way that each state shared the costs and benefits fairly,equitably and reasonably. Such an example provides the groundfor the effective and efficient development of a shared resourcefor mutual benefit.These inter-state resolutions within India could be regarded asgood examples of how to resolve the existing problems onsharing and allocation of common waters between India and herother riparian states at the international level. The fact thatIndia has already agreed to such arrangements should not berefused with respect to her neighbours. The genesis of theseresolutions has been a co-operative approach, negotiation,exchange of data and statistics and a true realisation of how toshare the costs as well as benefits proportionately with a ‘noharm’ concept. The reason for evaluating several Indian waterdisputes is that the research is explicitly linked with the issuesof India’s neighbour, Nepal, i.e., the Indian case law could behelpful to sort out the outstanding issues in the region. Similarinter-province problems remain in Pakistan as well, in relationto the sharing of the Indus River water between Punjab andSindh provinces. There are serious conflicts here, the formeralleging the latter wastes its share and the latter blaming theformer for stealing its share of water. This has resulted inpolitical issues being led by water issues. Consequently, thereis now an independence movement in Sind Province, assumedto stem from the water sharing issues. 41 These decisions haveinextricable linkages with the book in view of the fact that Indiais alleged to be using double standards while dealing with itsupstream and downstream states. 42 In conclusion, in all40 Ibid. pp. 314-315.41 M. Paukert, “The Indus umbilical” Himal South Asia, July (2002).42 A. B. Thapa, “World Bank and Nepal’s Water Strategy” (2003) 10-16Jan., in 23 Spotlight, pp. 1-3.judgements, the principles of equitable apportionment, efficientutilization and co-operation between the watercourse stateswere enunciated. This has significantly contributed to the fairand equitable entitlement of a state’s entitlement to a sharedwater resource within India.Many of the principles decided in the case law discussed abovewere foreshadowed by a commission established by the Britishgovernment in 1941. As an early commission, which wasconstituted to resolve the inter-state dispute between theprovince of Sind and Punjab in the then British India under theGovernment of India Act 1935, some of the recommendationsmade by the commission were highly significant to thedevelopment of the area. However, it must be taken intoconsideration that these recommendations were never compliedwith by the disputant parties. The commission chaired byJustice B. N. Rau, known as the Rau commission, enunciatedsix principles for the resolution of the dispute, two of which arepertinent here. One of the principles is:"the rights of the several provinces and states mustbe determined by applying the rules of 'equitableapportionment', each unit getting a fair share of thewater of the common river." The second one is that“that equitable sharing once made, may cease to beequitable later, in the face of the newcircumstances.” 43This indicates that the changed circumstance, in which newperspectives emerge, may change a judgement made earlier, asa result of which the equitable matters may become inequitablein the changed circumstance. That is to say that the term'equitable utilisation' varies in each circumstance and context,and may not be static and stable.43 Supra note 22, p. 154; also see “The Report of the Indus Commission”Lahore, Gov. Printing Punjab, 1950.