The current Indo-Pakistan tension and India’s position in the Indus Water Dispute

The current Indo-Pakistan tension is intense. Both these nations are at war with each other, albeit without formally declaring war. The immediate provocation came from Pakistan. The terrorists infiltrated Pahalgam(J&K) and murdered more than 30 people (non-Kashmiri tourists)  in cold blood in a dastardly terrorist act. As usual, Pakistan denied any involvement in this terrorist Act. During May 1st Week,  there was a serious armed conflict. Now, at the request of Pakistan, there is a cessation of hostilities.

About 30 years ago, they would have openly claimed responsibility and declared that they would continue to provide moral, material, and arms support for the cause of Jammu and Kashmir. They had been sneaking in their troops under the guise of freedom fighters or jihadis. Now, they are smart enough to disown it, although they continue to support for terrorist activities in India —but that is a side story.

The main story is that the Union of India has declared that it will keep the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance. This is the ultimate threat it will of course take at least 3 to 5 years and billions of dollars before India can implement its threat. The Indus Water Treaty, which was brokered by the World Bank, was the brainchild of David E Lilienthal, who was then chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He provided a technical solution to the problem of managing disputed waters. The World Bank played the role of facilitator. India paid Pakistan part of the money for the construction of link canals in Pakistan. The World Bank also provided development Aid.

As per the treaty, India was given the right to the full use of the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—and Pakistan was given exclusive rights over the rivers Jhelum, Chenab, and Indus. Of course, in the case of Chenab and Jhelum, India retained the right to non-consumptive use of the waters. Western all the rivers carry 80 per cent percentage of the water, Eastern Rivers have just 20 per cent of the water flow.

After the conclusion of the treaty, which involved India paying about 70 million dollars to Pakistan for the construction of distribution canals (essentially to ensure that the areas in Pakistan then (1960) irrigated from eastern rivers like Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej could get water from the western rivers). Pakistan had to undertake extensive canal work. India also paid part of the cost of that canal work. The World Bank and the USA also gave more substantial financial assistance than India.

Thus, India acquired exclusive rights to the waters of Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. Pakistan was given more or less full rights over Jhelum, Chenab, and Indus. Right from the time I was a serious student of international Law, I always felt the Indus Water Treaty is a good example for solving a serious problem between arch rivals. A technical solution was provided by a well-meaning umpire for sharing the waters of a copious river system. It has stood the test of time and survived more than three wars. By and large, people of both the countries were satisfied with it. It was often hailed as an experiment in international cooperation, even between arch-rivals.

Since then, of course, a lot of water has flowed under the bridges of the Indus River system (both literally and figuratively). There is global warming, the quantum of water yield in the Indus River system is declining. We have problems of desertification, climate and rainfall pattern change. Pakistan has been unreasonable and uncooperative by putting the brakes on India’s attempts to construct hydroelectric or navigation projects, which are well within the rights of the Union of India.

Because of Pakistan’s uncooperative attitude, India had to endure significant time and cost overruns in the completion of those projects. Even though India was given full share of the waters of the eastern rivers, it could not fully use them. For a long time (almost 5 decades), India allowed a lot of excess water from these eastern rivers to flow into Pakistan. Only recently, during the last term of Mr. Narendra Modi, did they ensure that all the waters (really 90 percent) of the eastern rivers are diverted to other Indian states such as Jammu, Punjab Haryana and Rajasthan. Now, India has more or less established exclusivity over the waters flowing in the eastern rivers. This is one of the biggest advantages that the Union of India has received in pursuant of the treaty.

I believe that India is a country committed to Dharma. The Indian Constitution promises everyone social, economic, and political justice. It aspires to promote fraternity among human beings. It exhorts people to respect biodiversity and ensure respect and observance of international Law. It is in this context that I am going to consider the Indian decision to keep the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance.

Once again, I repeat that there is almost a state of war between India and Pakistan. Our Prime Minister has made the decision to use military and other power available at his command. He is being advised by one of the best foreign ministers in the world, Mr. S. Jaishankar, who has a very wide experience in handling foreign affairs. Of course, other members of the Cabinet would also have given their input before the government took this decision.

As a humble Indian citizen, even though I do not agree with it, I have a duty to respect it. I will definitely do that. At the same time, I would like our government, during better times, to consider whether the treaty must be abrogated in its entirety or whether only those provisions that are inconvenient for the Indian government in the changing circumstances need to be modified. I am not very sure whether the treaty requires wholesale modifications. Of late, I have been hearing a lot about the abrogation or suspension of the treaty from many others, but never from the Ministry of Water Resources.

In any case, the position of the Water Resources Minister in the Indian Cabinet is not one many people will easily recall. (Unlike the Home, the Défense or the Law or Finance Ministers, whose names people readily remember). The Water Resources Minister infamously declared that not a drop of water will flow to Pakistan. It is geologically and hydrologically impossible.

We must remember that the Indus also has another tributary, the Kabul, which flows from Afghanistan. It appears that the Union of India is already advising the Taliban government to dam the Kabul River and further reduce the flow of Kabul waters into the Indus River system. But Kabul is a seasonal summer river fed by snow melt. In fact, India had already helped Afghanistan build a dam. When the Taliban took power for the second time after the Americans left, the Pakistani government indirectly goaded the new Taliban government to destroy the dam because it was constructed in Afghanistan by the "infidel Hindu nation"—India. However, the Talibans are too smart and wise. They understand the benefits of a dam not only for irrigation but also to provide drinking water in a country that faces water scarcity. Sure, India will play a helpful role to the Afghans. 

In reality, India has put in place a serious plan to strangle Pakistan by diminishing the flow of Indus waters into Pakistan. Actually, the Pakistani government has declared that under the rules of customary international law, the act of stopping water flow to a country during crucial cropping seasons is an act of war. This is true. The current legal position is that if a country cuts off water resources to its neighbour, the neighbour may be (may include may not) within its rights to use military force. That is what Egypt has repeatedly claimed, not only against Sudan but also against Ethiopia. As per customary international law, the stoppage of interstate river waters to another riparian state will technically amount to the use of force. Therefore, it is an act of war. But with the benefit of hindsight, it will not be War simpliciter. It is Suegeneric warfare, like cyber warfare, economic warfare, counterfeit currency warfare, etc.

However, India is going to justify it as an act of Reprisal or a punitive measure in response to an international legal crime committed by Pakistan. Pakistan has a history of terrorist acts against India. They slaughtered innocent civilians in Bombay—about 200 people lost their lives. They tried to attack the Parliament when it was in Session. They killed Pilgrims in Akshardham, Gujarat. They have been engineering many acts of sabotage and bomb blasts in different parts of India. They always smugly say, "No, we did not do it. Give us the evidence and not information. When Evidence is given and a joint investigation pursued,  they will want a neutral investigator to derail the investigation. Adding insult to the injury, they claim that the people of India are so dissatisfied with their own government that they resort to such terrorist Act. These are the normal Pakistani reactions.

Earlier, they used to say that they would provide moral, material, and military support. Now they claim they will not provide any weapons support or anything like that—They will only provide moral and Diplomatic support. Regarding material support, Pakistan is one of the poorest states—a basket case—so they have nothing much to give. The best they can give is moral support. People in the 21st century have realized that the last thing any struggling person/Country wants is ‘moral support’. Our Foreign Minister Dr. Jaishankar, very clearly said, "Look here, we are not looking for preachers; we are looking for partners."

So Pakistan is in an unenviable situation. Unfortunately, as a nation, Pakistan has not conducted its affairs rationally. They lost a big chunk of their territory in 1971. India may have accelerated the process. But India was not responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan. Pakistan can only blame itself for refusing to honour the results of the Pakistani election, where Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of the Awami League would have become the Prime Minister of Pakistan, which Bhutto and the Military did not want. Now also, there are also two regions in Pakistan where there are independence movements. Nowadays, Pakistan has begun asserting that India is behind these movements 

But that’s another story. Now, coming back to the issue, the Indian act of keeping the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance requires reconsideration.   I also know that almost the entire Indian press and intelligentsia are appreciating Prime Minister Mr. Modi for keeping the treaty in abeyance. People remember his poignant statement: "Water and blood will not flow together." Now, because there has been a lot of spillages of Indian blood, we would like to ensure that water will not go to Pakistan.

One must respect Mr. Narendra Modi. He has undoubtedly left a big mark on Indian history. During his tenure, there has been reasonable stability and prosperity. However, his record in treating minorities, respecting regional parties, and improving the spirit of federalism in Indian polity is less than what I would have liked. In fact, I still admire Modi. His contribution to nation-building is immense. But even his Government is capable incorrect decisions. That's why I want an introspection.

But at the same time, the cost of diverting the waters of Chenab and Indus will be prohibitive. Of course, even today, India can upset the water flow through manipulation of the Chenab and Jhelum waters. As of now, India's ability to tamper with the flow of the Indus is nil. Regarding Chenab, we have marginal capabilities. Regarding Jhelum, we have slightly more capability—that’s all. But we must recognise that the waters from Chenab and Jhelum do not even constitute 20% of the total water flow in the entire Indus system. This is a fact—an objective fact that one needs to verify. So, the reduction that the Indian government can bring about in the flow of waters may not be so substantial. Even if Afghanistan also completely diverts the flow of Kabul River and India is able to drain the entire Chenab and a good part of Jhelum(very difficult prepositions), even then it may constitute only 10% to 20% of the total water flow in the Indus River system.

For accomplishing this objective, India would have to spend billions of dollars. I would think it could even get close to a trillion. I am not a hydrological engineer. But think of something like the Three Gorges Dam in China or other huge engineering marvels—India would have to attempt something on that scale. It is going to be very difficult.

If the same kind of money is spent by the Indian government in interlinking Indian rivers, the amount of prosperity it will bring to India will provide a kind of weapon superiority—military superiority—over Pakistan. Pakistan will then have no other option but to surrender to India.

Thus, I would say that India should renegotiate the treaty by all means. They should also demand a better share of the water of the Chenab. Please remember that these rivers ultimately join the Indus River. Even ensuring the utilisation of 50% of water by India would involve an effort of at least 7 to 10 years and a lot of money, and uncertainty. It would be environmentally unfriendly in the days of climate and rainfall pattern change, which will further the desertification of the Indian subcontinent.  

If the same money is spent in undisputed river basins, we will achieve more efficient water management. It will make India a truly prosperous country, more prosperous than China, definitely. Therefore, I would think that when India renegotiates the Indus Water Treaty, it should recognise that Pakistan, as a lower riparian state, has a right to live.

We have a lot of problems with the present Pakistani government. We have always had problems with previous governments. But we should not be so cruel as to deny the people of the Indus Basin their basic right to live. If India asserts this right harshly, then when China asserts such a right for the use of Himalayan waters, it will have terrible implications for Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand, and Myanmar. At that time, we will have to remain as silent spectators if we divert the Indus rivers now.

India should not create a precedent that facilitates China in diverting the entire waters of the Himalayan rivers and making Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and even Bangladesh into deserts. Certainly not a good thing to happen for Asia.

End Note: The twentieth century was an era of big dams. But during the Third Millennium, there is a realisation that the surest way to kill a river system is to dam it or divert it. India will have to do both to realise their declared objective.