KALABAGH DAM: Can there ever be consensus?

Consensus on any national issue is the last thing that we can expect of our politicians, as our history shows. If it depended on their consensus, Pakistan itself would not have been there. While the masses, under the leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam, were united in their demand for Pakistan, many Muslim members of the Punjab Assembly joined Hindus and Sikhs in the Unionist Party to come into power, rather than joining the Muslim League. In NWFP, politicians, led by Ghaffar Khan (known as Frontier Gandhi), wanted their province to be an independent country.
Due to lack of consensus among the politicians, we did not have our first Constitution for nine long years after Independence. Even after we finally had it in 1956, there was no consensus among politicians on holding elections, until Iskandar Mirza, whom they themselves had elected President, threw them out in October 1958 by imposing martial law.
There was no consensus of politicians on Indus Water Treaty that was signed by President Ayub Khan in early 1960s. The opponents did not explain how, in the absence of any agreement, they would stop India from going ahead and diverting unilaterally most of the rivers.
If the politicians had a consensus, they would have allowed Ayub Khan to continue as President for just 10 more months until the next presidential elections (in which he was not going to be a candidate). That would have stopped Yahya Khan from taking over and saved the country from another martial law and subsequent disastrous developments in East Pakistan.
If Mujib-ur-Rehman and Bhutto could reach a consensus on sharing power, Yahya Khan would have been forced to install an elected government and there would have been no Bangladesh.
If Bhutto had sought consensus of politicians, he could never recognize Bangladesh and it would have continued to be “the Province of East Pakistan,” as the 1973 Constitution described it. The politicians, who opposed him, later called for “close brotherly relations” with the new country.
If the People’s Party and the Muslim League could reach a consensus in 1977, Gen. Zia would have been forced to have general elections within 90 days, as he had promised. The country would have been saved from 11 years of his martial law.

Now, the Kalabagh Dam. The studies on it started in 1953. There were no fears, no objections and no reservations from politicians for over 30 years. Just when the construction was to start in 1985, Gen. Fazle Haq, who was the Governor of NWFP, opposed the dam. As a petty-minded, would-be politician, he thought it would make him popular in the province. Gen. Zia lacked the will to put his foot down and ask his colleague to shut up.
The big Sindhi wadera politicians, who enjoyed free use of lands along the river banks, turned the Kalabagh Dam into a propaganda weapon against the Punjab. Uncontrolled river water irrigated these lands and the storage would have deprived them of the undeserved benefit.
Very soon India realized that Kalabagh Dam offered an ideal opportunity to instigate other provinces against the Punjab and put at risk even the very survival of the country in the long term. It activated its friends in the NWFP, who had opposed the creation of Pakistan itself under the influence of Congress leaders. Indian intelligence bought small-time Sindhi politicians, who used the opposition to the dam and hatred against the Punjab to gain prominence. The Indian money financed many small newspapers in Sindh that either could not survive on their own or had no qualms about taking bribes. Over the years, an atmosphere was created that made it difficult even for the mainstream Sindhi politicians to rise above petty provincialism.
Then came the independent power producers, who had used heavy kickbacks to get very favorable terms and high rates for their thermal electricity. Cheap hydel electricity was certainly not in their interest. They are not opposed just to Kalabagh but all big dams. So, they too are lavishing money on pliable politicians and media. They also know the sophisticated tricks to manipulate opinion makers. No wonder, we hear so much noise against Kalabagh in the media, both big and small.
The unfortunate part of the game is that the politicians opposing the Kalabagh Dam never suffered any harm. Muhammad Khan Junejo and Benazir Bhutto became Prime Ministers only with the support of the Punjab but always preferred to play to the gallery in their home province of Sindh. The only Punjabi Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, spent all his power on throwing out the heads of judiciary, army and the state, instead of using his heavy mandate to push through Kalabagh Dam.
The hypocrites, who do not have the courage to express their opposition openly, suggest “consensus.” How can there be any consensus, for heaven’s sake, if the opponents just refuse to see reason? A foolhardy young villager wagered with his friends that the color of milk was black. “The village elders will decide tomorrow evening who is right,” he told his mother. “You will certainly lose,” she responded. “I shall lose only if I accept that milk is white.” If the opponents of Kalabagh continue to behave like that young man, there can never be a consensus. They use distorted facts and manipulated data to shore up their false claims. So, why bother? President Pervez Musharraf should not worry if some of them still oppose the Kalabagh Dam even after 20 years of controversy.
What will happen after President Musharraf decides to go ahead and the work starts on Kalabagh Dam? There will some public demonstrations, financed by the vested interests. There will be strongly worded public statements and newspaper editorials. There will be threats of “long marches” and of bombing the dam site. There will be even threats of resigning from the Assemblies. However, the dust will settle and life will soon return to normal. We saw something similar on Afghanistan immediately after 9/11.
A great leader has to do what is good for the country, however unpalatable it may be to some politicians. He can explain his reasoning but cannot accept irrationality. During the struggle for Independence, most of the Muslim politicians, intellectuals and media people were against the creation of Pakistan. They made all kinds of claims, saying that Pakistan was not feasible and, if created, would not survive for more than a few months. Later, they all took somersaults and claimed credit for working for Pakistan. Only Khizar Hayat Tiwana, the last Chief Minister of the Punjab before Independence, had the decency to retire from politics for having been proven wrong.
Somebody should prepare a complete list of all those opposing the Kalabagh Dam—politicians, journalists, bureaucrats, engineers, intellectuals, everybody. After the dam is ultimately completed and all objections and claims against it turn out to be false, they should all be asked to retire for ever from public life. That will be the minimum punishment for depriving the country of hundreds of billions of rupees of return that the dam would have given us by now.
Of course, the opponents of the dam will not agree to it. They will have complete consensus at least on this point.