Both on technical grounds and the interpretation of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, India has been able to put its point of view across to neutral arbitrator Raymond Lafitte. Going by the last meeting in Washington in November, it is unlikely that the final decision will be very different from Lafitte’s July draft decision in Paris.

Lafitte has suggested two modifications: Decrease the height of the dam by 1.5 metres and raise the water inlet point for the turbines. According to technical experts, these amount to “cosmetic change” in the dam construction. In fact, India had proposed reduction in height in the bilateral discussions on since 1999 when the dam was first proposed. But Pakistan had turned it down then. Islamabad had appealed to the World Bank to appoint a neutral expert after talks between the two sides failed to resolve the issue.

According to technical experts, raising of the inlet point does not translate into any extra cost or major overhaul in design. More so, as the first phase of construction, stalled since 2004 has not reached the inlet point. In return, India may get to keep the sluice gates that it wants. Sluice gates are state-of-the-art technology for hydroelectric dams, placed usually at the bottom of the reservoir to control both flood and silt.

After the draft determination ruled in favour of India on this, Pakistan stuck to its previous stand and came up with a fresh study to counter the rationale of the sluice gates. After the draft decision, both countries were allowed to send in written comments to Lafitte.

India was able to counter the study on technical grounds, pointing out that the dam would be useless if the sluice gates are not placed at the bottom of the dam. Pakistan is apprehensive that the sluice gates will give India the freedom to release and store water at will. Two, being at the bottom, these would allow India to store large quantity of water which, if released, could flood the Pakistan Panjab plains.

India has been citing the example of the Salal hydro-electric project on the Chenab, a few kilometres downstream from the proposed Baglihar, which was altered to keep Pakistan satisfied. Today, the project is redundant, prematurely, with its intake points silted, reducing power generation capacity to almost nothing. India does not want Baglihar to be a repeat of the Salal.

The other point that Pakistan has been raising is the interpretation of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty. Seasoned law experts like Fali Nariman have helped in showing that the treaty leaves scope for these technological advancements. The treaty requires for 50-130% water to be released downstream every day. As long as India sticks to the total volume of water, it is safe as far as the treaty is concerned.

It has been a long battle on Baglihar. Ever since the World Bank neutral expert was appointed last year, there have been several rounds of talks, written submissions and visits to the site. While Pakistan hired two foreign consultants to build its case, India had a battery of 18 technical experts, policymakers and lawyers to present its case.

Paperwork came to an end this week when India sent its last submission, replying to specific points raised by Pakistan on the sluice gates. Lafitte’s verdict is expected on February 12.