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; militants infiltrated Pahalgam and murdered more than 30 people in cold blood in a dastardly terrorist act. As usual, Pakistan denied any involvement in this terrorist Act, as it had always done in the past. When this blog began, there was an 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 contribute to the continuation
of these terrorist activities—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. 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. Indian paid Pakistan part of the money for the
construction of 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 some money 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, and 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 was a good way to solve a serious problem. A technical solution was provided by a well-meaning umpire for sharing the waters of a copious river system (between sworn enemies). It has stood the test of time and survived three wars. By and large, people 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. 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 to
the waters of the eastern rivers, it could not fully use them, and for a long
time— (almost 5 decades)—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 pursuant to 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 and 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
has not spoken much about it, and I believe this will have significant
implications. What he spoke viz drop of water flows to Pakistan, 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 Taliban’s
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 faces water scarcity.
Sure, India will play a helpful role to the Afghans. They are already doing in
the Iranian border. That is another issue.
But India has put in place
a serious plan to strangle Pakistan by preventing 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 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 force. That is what Egypt
has repeatedly claimed, not only against Sudan but also against Ethiopia. As a
rule of customary international law, the stoppage of interstate river waters to
another riparian state will technically amount to the use of force. I am not
disputing that—it is an act of war. But with the benefit of hindsight, it will
not be War simpliciter. It is sue a generic warfare. Like cyber warfare,
economic (counterfeit currency) warfare, etc.
However, India is going to justify it as an act of Reprisal. 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 give us the evidence and nof information. When Evidence is given, they will want a neutral investigator to do it. The people of India are so dissatisfied with their own government that Indian national doing These were the 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’. Even our Foreign Minister 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 is 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.
But that’s another story.
Now, coming back to the issue—the Indian act of keeping the Indus Water Treaty
in abeyance, in my opinion, requires reconsideration when India and Pakistan
return to better relations. I hope it happens. I know that at the moment the
possibilities are bleak. I also know that almost the entire Indian press and intelligentsia
are strongly appreciating Prime Minister 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
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 a 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 recognize 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 such that Pakistan will 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 some
share of the water of the Chenab. Please remember that these rivers ultimately
join the Indus rivers. 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 India for efficient water cause 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.
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 era of big dams. But during the Third Millennium, there is a realisation that
the surest way to kill a river system is the dam it or divert it. India will
have to do both to realise their declared objective.
Comments
Post a Comment