IndusWatersTreaty-FutureProspects

8/8/2019 IndusWatersTreaty-FutureProspects

1/13

(EVENING PROGRAMME)

INDUS WATERS TREATY-FUTURE PROSPECTS

BY

AZHAR AHMAD

(PHD CANDIDATE)

SUBJECT: CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA

SUPERVISOR: PROF DR PERVAIZ IQBAL CHEEMA

SUBMITTED ON: 02 DEC 2009

DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES

FACULTY OF CONTEMPORARY STUDIES

NATIONAL DEFENCE UNIVERSITY

ISLAMABAD


2/13

INTRODUCTION

After air water is perhaps the most crucial element for sustenance of life on this planet.

Despite the fact that two thirds of earths surface is water, only a fraction (0.007%) of that is

available for human consumption. Fresh water is a depletable commodity and is distributed

unevenly around the globe; therefore, its availability is uncertain and difficult for some. Theincrease in population and industrial growth has placed tremendous pressure on this precious

resource. It is said that about 25 million people are migrating annually around the world due to

water scarcity, much higher than those migrating for any other cause including violence or

terrorism This has caused the humans to be possessive and protective about water.

The demand for fresh water continues to grow with the growth in human population.

With approximately 90 million people born each year, 95% of population increase takes place in

the developing countries. Increase in population proportionately increases the demand for food

and other commodities which places additional strain on water for agriculture, industry and

house hold uses1. There are many drivers of human development, but water is the mostimportant. According to UNESCO a billion people in the developing countries have inadequate

access to water and 2.4 billion lack basic sanitation. A child born in the under developed world

consumes 30-50 times less water than one born in the developed countries. Global water

consumption has raised six fold during the last 100 years, at more than double the rate of

population growth and is estimated to cross the 9 billion mark by 2050. Water tables are

dropping steadily in several major food producing regions and ground water is being pumped out

at a rate faster than the rate at which nature can recharge it2. This has led to a competition for

water resources and consequently, friction and antagonism between the states. Historically, water

disputes have not been violent; however, the depletion of fresh water, at such an alarming rate, is

causing some analysts to predict that future wars will be fought on water instead of oil.

South Asia is one of the poorest regions of the world with a plethora of problems. It has

perhaps the highest population growth rate which is taxing all its resources and water is no

exception. According to a World Bank report, there are some 20 major river basins across the

region. Of these the four largest are those of the Indus, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the

Meghna (Barak), shared between the countries of the South Asia, as well as, China. These

transnational rivers have sharp variations in terms of the volume of water flows, climatic changes

such as monsoons and droughts in the territory of some countries many a times disturbing settled

transnational water sharing arrangements. Rapid population growth, industrialization, expanding

urbanization, and fast growing water needs for irrigation and power generation are putting ever

increasing strains on these rivers3. To make matters worse, there is a perpetual animosity and a

1 Igor A Shiklomanov, World Water Resources: A New Appraisal and Assessment for 21st

Century (Johanesberg: Water International, Vol 25, Issue 1, 2000), p 12.2 Kent H Butts, The Strategic Importance of Water, (Honolulu: Seminar -Water and Conflictin Asia?- Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, 1999)3 M.A.Salman and Kishor Upreti, Coflict and Cooperation on South Asias InternationalRivers: A Legal Perspective, The World Bank Law, Justice and Development Series
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t792815876http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t792815876~tab=issueslist~branches=25#v25http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g908076060http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t792815876http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t792815876~tab=issueslist~branches=25#v25http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g908076060


3/13

lack of trust between the countries of the region, particularly, with the largest country India,

which shares river waters with four countries of South Asia.

GENESIS OF THE INDUS WATERS ISSUE

The Indus basin system of rivers comprises nine rivers. The system is named after the mostimportant river of the system-Indus. Six rivers of the system namely the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab,

Ravi, Sutlej and Beas, are placed in one group because their flows are shared commonly by

Pakistan and India. The other three rivers, Kabul, Swat and Kurram, are placed in another group

because their flows are commonly shared by Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although these rivers

have their own tributaries and independent courses of flows, they are also treated as the

tributaries of the Indus because they all culminate directly or indirectly in the Indus which

eventually falls in the Arabian Sea. However, in common perception, the system is only referred

to as the first group of six rivers since they flowed through the British India. The colonial

administration understood the importance of the water resources of these rivers for economic

development and exploited them for irrigation with the help of modern technology. (tajudin).

The Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are known as the Western rivers of the system because

they originate in the western region of Shivalik and Pir Panjal ranges and their flows work as

drainage of the NW Himalayas. Ravi, Sutlej and Beas are called the Eastern rivers since they

originate from the territory lying east of these ranges and function as natural drainage of the SE

region4. The Indus Basin consists of three geographical regions: Himalayan region, Sub-

Himalayan region and the Plains. The Indus Plain is a semi-arid and arid region. No agriculture

is sustainable in this fertile plain without artificial irrigation except near foot-hills and river

margins. The flat Indus Plains with the perennial rivers flowing through it like the fingers of a

hand is ideally suitable for the development of the largest contiguous canal irrigation system.According to experts no other area in world has a similar natural advantage for the development

of a canal irrigation system5. And hence, the British constructed one of the largest canal networks

in the world.

Such a network was manageable under a one central authority. However when under the

Government of India Act 1935, the responsibility of the management of these river waters was

transferred to the Provinces, differences became visible. In 1939 Sind, then part of the Bombay

province, objected to certain development schemes being planned by Punjab. Government of

India formed a commission under Justice B N Rao to resolve the issue, but the provinces rejected

the proposals of the commission and the matter was referred to His majestys government inLondon. However, the process was stalled because of the partition. The partition plan divided the

(Washington DC: Library of Congress, 2002).4 Aloys Arthur Michel, The Indus Rivers: A Study of the Effects of Partition (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1967) p 34.5 Mohammad Tajuddin and Muzaffar Ali, Two States in One River Basin System: Conflict toCooperative Co-Existence, in Kulwant Kaur (ed.), South Asia Dynamics of Politics, Economy& Security (New Delhi:Knowledge World) p130


4/13

Indus basin between two sovereign independent states and thus the issue was internationalized.

The partition was to be carried out in 73 days and the division of the Indus basin was left to be

decided later. Sir Cyril Redcliff, Chairman of the Punjab Boundary Commission expressed hope

that a solution will be found between the two states for some joint control6

THE PAKISTAN-INDIA EQUATION

Of the 37 million acres of land irrigated by canals from the Indus and its tributaries, over

thirty million acres fell in Pakistan-an area equal to the combined irrigated lands of Egypt and

Sudan7. The partition severed the hydrologic unity of the Indus canals system. The uninterrupted

flow of irrigation waters to the fields in West Punjab became dependent on the decision of

another sovereign state, India. The boundary line between the two states was drawn right across

the Indus basin, leaving Pakistan as the lower riparian state. Two important irrigation headworks,

one at Madhopur on River Ravi (regulating waters to the Central Bari Doab canal) and the other

at Ferozepur on Sutlej river (regulating supplies to Dipalpur canal), though in the Muslim

majority areas were left in the Indian territory8. Pakistan rightly felt its livelihood threatened bythe prospect of Indian control over the tributaries that fed water into the Pakistani portion of the

basin. Quite surprisingly, the issue of distribution of these waters was also not referred to the

Arbitral Tribunal set up to make awards in respect of division of assets and liabilities between

the new provinces of East and West Punjab9. Under these conditions the Chief Engineers of East

and West Punjab signed an agreement on 20 Dec 1947 to avoid the partition affecting the flow of

waters in the canals. The agreement known as the Standstill Agreement bound India to allow

pre-partition allocation of water in the basin up to 31 March 1948.

India used water as a political weapon in the spring of 1948 when after the expiration of

the Standstill Agreement; it shut off water supplies from Ferozepur headwork to the DepalpurCanal and to the Pakistani portions of the Lahore and main branches of the Upper Bari Doab

canal. This affected about 5.5% of the sown area and nearly 8 percent of cultivable command

area in Pakistan at the beginning of the critical Kharif sowing season10. The city of Lahore was

deprived of the main source of municipal water and, the supply of electricity from the Mandi

hydroelectric scheme was also cut off. This Indian move to pressurize Pakistan into submission

on Kashmir exposed the vulnerability and dependence of Pakistan. In the words of David

Lilienthal, No armies with bombs and shellfire could devastate a land so thoroughly as Pakistan

6 Leonard Mosley, The Last Days of British Raj (New York: Werdenfeld and Nicholson,1962)p190.7 Abdul Sattar, Pakistans Foreign Policy 1947-2005: A Concise History (New York: OxfordUniversity Press,2007) p738 Pervaiz I Cheema, The Politics of the Punjab Boundary Award (Heidelberg: HeidelbergPapers,2000) p229 Mohammad Tajuddin and Muzaffar Ali, op cit., p13010 Asma Yaqoob, International River Waters In South Asia: Source of Conflict orCooperation? (Islamabad: Regional Studies Autumn 2004) p 132.


5/13

could be devastated by the simple expedient of Indias permanently shutting off the source of

waters that keep the fields and people of Pakistan green.11.

The situation triggered a serious water dispute to an extent that both the countries came to

the brink of war. Pakistans PM Liaquat Ali Khan through a telegram on 15 April requested

Prime Minister Nehru to take immediate action for restoring water supply. The issue waspartially resolved in Inter-Dominion Conference held on 3-4 May 1948. The Inter-Dominion

Agreement signed between Mr Jawaharlal Nehru (the Prime Minister of India) and Mr Ghulam

Muhammad (then Finance Minister of Pakistan) was not a solution of the water dispute but it

provided modus vivendi for the supply of waters to West Punjab from the two headworks at

Madhopur and Ferozepur . However, it remained the basis of water supply to Pakistan with few

exceptions till a treaty was finally signed in 1960 with mediation of the International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank)12.

THE INDUS WATERS TREATY 1960

The treaty consists of a preamble, twelve articles and eight annexure. The preamble of thetreaty expresses mutual desire of both countries to attain the most complete and satisfactory

utilization of the waters of the Indus system of riversin a spirit of goodwill and friendship.

Article I-Definitions- explains all the terms used in the text of the treaty and its

annexure.

Article II-Provisions Regarding Eastern Rivers-states that all the three eastern rivers shall

be available for the unrestricted use of India except for domestic, non-consumptive and

agricultural use as specified in relevant annexure. However, Pakistan may use the waters of these

rivers once they have finally crossed into Pakistan.

Article III-Provisions Regarding Western Rivers- states that India is obliged to let flow

waters of the three western rivers to Pakistan without interference except for domestic, non-

consumptive and agricultural uses specified in Annexure C and generation of hydro-electricpower as set out in Annexure D. India is also allowed limited storages on these rivers as given in

Annexure E.

Article IV-Provisions Regarding Eastern Rivers and Western Rivers- defines the general

guidelines for the ongoing and future uses by the two parties in such a manner that no damage isdone to the material interests of the other party. It also urges Pakistan to construct replacement

works provided for in the treaty.

Article V-Financial Provisions- provides mechanism for Indian contribution of Pound

Sterling 62,060,000 for the replacement works. It also defines the amount to be paid by Pakistanin case of extension in the transition period.

11 Abdul Sattar, op cit., p 7312 Aloys Arthur Michel, op cit., p 205.


6/13

Article VI-Exchange of Data- describes the type of data to be exchanged between the two

parties on monthly basis.

Article VII-Future Cooperation- highlights the common interest of the parties in theoptimum development of the rivers by mutual cooperation. It also binds each party to keep the

other informed of intended works on the waters.

Article VIII-Permanent Indus Commission- provides detailed mechanism for the

establishment of a high powered commission to oversee the implementation of the treaty and topromote cooperation between the parties in the development of the waters and related issues.

The Commission is to meet regularly, at least once a year, alternatively in India and Pakistan.

Each Commissioner is to be granted diplomatic status by the other country as per the treaty.

Article IX-Settlement of Differences and Disputes-defines difference and dispute andexplains the procedure for resolution of the same. This includes referral to Neutral Expert or

Court of Arbitration.

Article X-Emergency Provision (redundant)- allows Pakistan to use this article in case it

is unable to procure materials and equipments necessary for the completion of replacementworks by a given date, due to some large scale international hostilities arising out of causes

beyond its control. In such a situation the World Bank would notify each party about it and they

would enlist the good offices of the World Bank to decide if there was a need for anymodification in the treaty.

Article XI-General Provisions- affirms that the treaty governs the rights and obligations

of each party in relation to the other with respect only to the use of the waters of the rivers and

matters incidental thereto. Provisions of the Treaty will not be construed as in any way

establishing a general principle or precedent. The parties agree not to invoke the treaty foranything not expressly recognized under the treaty.

Article XII-Final Provisions-states the name of the treaty, date of effect, scope of its

modification and its continuity until terminated by another treaty.

ANALYSIS OF INDUS WATERS TREATY

The signing of the treaty on 19 Sep 1960 in Karachi was a big international event.

Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan, .Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, and theVice President of the World Bank W.A.B. Iliff signed the treaty. The representatives of USA, the

UK, Australia, New Zealand and Germany were also present on the occasion. This signatureresulted in the formal settlement of a serious water dispute between the two riparian states in apeaceful manner. The importance of the treaty was recognized by the World Bank in its press

release of 19 Sep according to which the signing of the treaty marks the end of a critical and

long-standing dispute and opens the way for development of water resources in the Indus basin,on which depends the livelihood of some 50 million in India and Pakistan 13. The leaders of

13 IBRD Press Release, No. 618, quoted in N.D.Gulati, Indus Waters Treaty: An Exercise inInternational Mediations (Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1973) p 339.


7/13

Pakistan and India expressed their satisfaction and hope for better relations in future. Ayub Khan

said, the treaty was an event of great historic significance for the two countries concerned..for

the whole world14. Nehru said, we are going to have many benefits out of this agreement butimportant than the material advantages are the psychological and emotional benefit15. the

international press acclaimed it as proof that even a seemingly insolvable international conflict

might be resolved if the parties were sincere to find a solution and there was a neutral mediatorto steward the negotiation for a success.

The people of Pakistan and India generally welcomed the treaty. It was considered a great

opportunity for the promotion of better bilateral relations. But it was criticized by the extremist

in both the countries. In the opinion of the Indian extremists New Delhi had surrendered itsrivers to Pakistan. The Indian contribution for the replacement works was also perceived as an

unfair burden. In Pakistan some resentment was expressed, justifiably, on the loss of the three

Eastern Rivers.

The treaty was the result of the sincere desire and effort by both the parties in association

with the World Bank to come to a diplomatic solution of the problem. It was the culmination of acomplex negotiation process for nine years from 1951 to 1960. The negotiations continued in

sessions; whenever, any deadlock emerged, and there were many, the World Bank found out away to resolve it by new ideas or by consulting the political leadership of the two countries. The

World Bank worked not only as a facilitator and mediator in the negotiation but also as an

organizer of funds for the actualization of the settlement of the water dispute. The credit of thetreaty should also go the statesmanship of Ayub and Nehru, who saved the negotiation whenever

a stalemate emerged and to the persistence of the World Bank to resolve the old dispute16.

From Pakistans point of view the settlement plan as envisaged under the Indus Waters

Treaty had some advantages as well as shortfalls17:

Advantages

1. After the completion of the Indus Basin Replacement Works Plan, each country

became independent of the other in the operation of its water supplies.

2. Indus basin irrigation system which was mostly based on run-of-the-river system got

reliable storage facilities to make the system more reliable under seasonal variations.

3. Each country became responsible for planning, construction and administering its

own facilities in its own interests and free to allocate its supplies within its own

territories.

14 The Dawn (Karachi) 20 September 1960.15 The Hindu (Madras) 20 September 1960.16 Mohammad Tajuddin and Muzaffar Ali, op cit., p 149.17 Interview Mr Jamait Ali Shah, Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters, Islamabad, 09 Nov2009.


8/13

4. This provided strong incentive to each country to make the most effective use of

water, since any efficiency accomplished by works undertaken by either country for

storage, transfer and reduction of loses, accrues directly to the benefit of that country.

5. The independence afforded by the treaty also brought a benefit of a different kind.

The location of works serving each country or territories under its control and theassurances against interference by either country with the supplies on which the other

depends reduced the chances of disputes and tension.

6. As a result of the treaty, storage projects also increased the canal water diversions

from 67 MAF to 104 MAF.

7. Water available in winter has been assured and so the country is least affected in

drought conditions.

Drawbacks

1. Pakistan had to forego the entire perpetual flow of fresh waters of the eastern rivers

(24 MAF) which it used to historically receive for irrigation.

2. The traditional flood irrigation, the most ancient way of using river waters, on the

Sutlej, Beas and to some extent on Ravi disappeared. As a result no cultivation was

possible in the flood plains of these rivers thus rendering a large extent of area barren.

3. Eastern rivers have lost their regular flow channels due to silting up and subsequent

flood can cause great havoc in Pakistan, in addition to other environmental effects.

4. The upkeep of the new link canals and storages means a heavy additional burden onthe cost of maintaining irrigation.

5. Storages are not substitutes of perpetual flow water as the storages have limited life.

Pakistan is already feeling the effect of silting up of its major reservoirs.

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES WITH INDIA

Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 has served both India and Pakistan for last 44 years.

However, taking advantage of the provisions of the treaty, according to which India is permitted

the use of water for domestic, non-consumptive (including navigation), agriculture (limited) and

storage (limited) and hydro electric power, India has already initiated/ proposed some

controversial projects over the Indus system which have a potential of escalating into tensions.

India, apparently is working on the policy of gradually undermining the treaty. Six major

disputes have since been raised; first two listed below have been resolved to the entire

satisfaction of the two countries; remaining are still to be resolved18.

18Formulated in light of Interview and Data from Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters,(Lahore, 2009).


9/13

Irrigated Cropped Area. Soon after the signing of the treaty, India was

obliged to communicate to Pakistan the irrigated area from the western rivers. India

provided an exaggerated figure of 692,479 acres. After successful negotiations both

countries agreed to reduce the figure to. 642,477 acres.

Salal Hydro-Electric Project. The Salal project is located 45 miles upstream ofMarala on river Chenab. It has a small reservoir of 0.23 MAF. Information about the

project was provided to Pakistan in 1974. The project is a run-of-river hydro-electric

plant. Its stage-I of 345 MW was commissioned in 1987, whereas, the stage-2 was

commissioned in 1995. Pakistan objected to the design which had six low-level

outlets and over all height of spillway gates of 40 ft in clear violation of the treaty.

After a series of meetings the issue got resolved through an agreement arrived at

between the two governments in April 1978. These outlets were plugged permanently

and the height of the spillway gates was also reduced from 40 ft to 30 ft. Pakistan

wanted the height restriction of 20 ft, reduced height of 30 ft was conceded as a

compromise. However, the manipulative storage of the dam got reduced from

230,000 acre ft to a manageable figure of 58000 acre ft after plugging of the low level

outlets.

Baghliar Hydro-Electric Power Project. Baglihar hydro-electric project is

located on river Chenab 80 km upstream of Salal project. It is also a run-of-river

hydro-electric plant. It envisages the construction of a 317m long and 144.5m high

concrete gravity dam with a gross storage capacity of about 0.321 MAF, of which

about 0.29 MAF is dead storage capacity. Pakistan objected to the design of under-

sluice type gated spillway (violation of para 8 of Annexure D to the Treaty). The

presence of these under-sluices could cause a shortage of inflows at Marala headwork

for about 20-25 days during lean months on mal-operation of dam by India.

The Permanent Indus Commission could not resolve the objections, Pakistan

invoked the relevant provisions of the Treaty and in order to resolve the issue under

the provisions of the Treaty, the World Bank appointed a Neutral Expert on 10 May

2005. The Neutral Expert gave his Final Determination on 12 February 2007. The

decision of the Neutral Expert upheld Pakistans contention that the design by India is

not in conformity with the design criteria of all the four design features of the dam as

laid down in the Treaty. The changes as determined by the Neutral Expert were

confirmed during the Tour of Inspection by the Permanent Indus Commission in July

2008. India formally commissioned the Plant on 10 October 2008. For

commissioning of the Plant, India filled the dam for its dead storage in August 2008

and again did not abide by the specific provisions of the Treaty so as to maintain the

flow of 55,000 cusecs at Marala Headwork in Pakistan.


10/13

In spite of repeated requests by Pakistan Commissioner, India did not provide

details of schedule for initial filling of Baglihar Plant. The protest on reduction of

flow was accordingly lodged against the Treaty violation with India. Pakistan has

asked for compensation of lost waters however, due to Indias intransigence the issue

remains unresolved and Pakistan needs to exercise the option of Third Party.

Wuller Barrage on River Jhelum. The construction of Wuller Barrage at the

downstream of Wuller Lake, was started by India in 1985 without informing Pakistan

in advance, a clear violation of the treaty. It was given the name of Tulbul

Navigation Project. It has a length of 439 ft, with a gated weir, under-sluices and a

40 ft wide navigation lock. It will have a maximum discharge capacity of 50,000

cusecs. With the construction of Wuller Barrage, India would be able to create an

additional storage capacity of 0.30 MAF. This would help it to store water up to 6

months during wet season and release discharges up to 4000 cusecsduring the period

from October to February. In this way India would get regulation control of Wuller

Lake, a natural lake on river Jhelum. Strong protest was lodged by Pakistan and the

work got suspended in 1987. According to sub-para 8 (h) of Annexure E of the Indus

Waters Treaty, India is entitled to construct only such barrage on Main Jhelum and

Main Chenab rivers which have incidental storage of no more than 10,000 acre ft,

only after the design has been scrutinized and approved by Pakistan. Whereas, the

Wuller barrages capacity is 300,000 acre ft, which is thirty times more than the

permitted capacity. The work is still suspended and the matter is under resolution

between the two governments. On suspension of the construction work, Pakistan did

not take the case in the Court of Arbitration. Wuller is the only water related issue

which is part of the composite dialogue.

Kishenganga Storage-Cum-Hydro-Electric Project on river Jhelum. The

information regarding the Kishanganga hydro-electric project was revealed in Nov 88

when India started construction of a tunnel near Kanzalwan on the river Neelum to

divert the waters into the Wuller Lake. The reservoir behind the dam has a full

capacity of about 0.18 MAF with a power storage capacity of about 0.14 MAF. In the

proposed scheme, the stored water of river Kishanganga (Neelam) is to be diverted

through a 24 km long, 5.3m dia horse shoe tunnel to produce 330 MW power. The

power house located near Bunkot will deliver the water through a Tail Race into a

nullah called Bonar-Madmati, another tributary of river Jhelum which outfall intoWullar Lake. This will deprive Neelum-Jhelum hydro-electric project (an under-

construction project of government of Pakistan) with some critical discharges. In this

way production capacity of Neelum Jhelum link hydro-electric project is likely to be

reduced from 11% to 16%. Pakistan has objected to diversion of water from Neelum

to Jhelum River. The Commission has not been able to resolve the issue and Pakistan


11/13

has kicked off the process for resolution through Court of Arbitration and Neutral

Expert for legal and technical issues respectively.

Dul Hasti Hydro-Electric Plant. The Dal Hasti hydro-electric project

envisages the construction of 180.5 m long and 59.5 m high concrete gravity dam

upstream of Baglihar hydro-electric project on river Chenab. A low level orifice typespillway has been provided with a capacity of the order of 8600 acre ft. The

construction of this project was started in 1991. Compared to Salal and Baglihar

Projects, the effect of this project on Pakistan is not grave since stoppage of water can

be of the order of 1-2 days only. However, it is imperative to discourage India from

providing under-sluices type gated spillway in the body of the dam.

FUTURE PROSPECTS

The history of water dispute resolution, in contrast to that of conflict, is much more

impressive. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has identified morethan 3600 treaties relating to international water resources, dating between 805 and 1984, the

majority of which deal with some aspect of navigation. Since 1814 about 300 international

treaties have been negotiated to deal with non navigational issues of water management: flood

control, hydropower projects, and allocations for consumptive or non consumptive uses in

international basins. Accounts of conflict related to water indicate that only seven minor

skirmishes have occurred in this century and that no war has yet been fought over water. In

contrast, 145 water-related treaties were signed in the same period. War over water seems not to

be strategically rational, hydrographically effective, or economically feasible. Shared interests

along a waterway seem to consistently outweigh waters conflict-inducing characteristics.Furthermore, once cooperative water regimes are established through treaties, they turn out to be

impressively resilient over time, even between otherwise hostile riparian states and even as

conflict is waged over other issues. These patterns suggest that the most valuable lesson to be

learned from the history of international water disputes is that this is a resource whose

characteristics tend to induce cooperation, inciting violence only as the exception 19.

The Indus Waters Treaty has served Pakistan and India for forty nine years. Both the

countries owe their green revolution of the 60s and 70s to this treaty. Regardless of the rhetoric

of the few against the treaty, the treaty is internationally accepted as a success story. The treaty is

not the ideal solution for the dispute, which should have been an integrated joint development of

the Indus system but, given the circumstances after partition and animosity between the two, it is

perhaps the closest possible realistic solution. There will always be issues which require

19 Aaron T. Wolf, Trends in Trans boundary Water Resources: Lessons for CooperativeProjects in the Middle East, paper delivered at a workshop at the International DevelopmentResearch Centre, Ottawa Canada, 30 Oct 1998 available at http://www.idrc.ca/CONFLICT/ev-33233-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.
http://www.idrc.ca/CONFLICT/ev-33233-201-1-DO_TOPIC.htmlhttp://www.idrc.ca/CONFLICT/ev-33233-201-1-DO_TOPIC.htmlhttp://www.idrc.ca/CONFLICT/ev-33233-201-1-DO_TOPIC.htmlhttp://www.idrc.ca/CONFLICT/ev-33233-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html


12/13

deliberation and clarification and they may be resolved in a spirit of mutual cooperation and

goodwill. It may be noted that both the countries are facing shortage of water. India with a larger

population and faster industrial growth may be affected more. It is therefore, in the benefit of

both the countries to realize the cooperative potential of this resource and exploit it to common

good of the people on both sides of the divide.

The treaty has served the two countries well in the past and all efforts must be aimed at

arriving mutual benefit decisions. Efforts to undermine the treaty by particular interest groups be

discouraged by saner elements on both sides and the media should create awareness in the

general masses of the rationality of having the treaty and the importance of cooperation in

utilizing the water resources. Yes suggestions to improve certain aspects of the treaty could

always be welcomed but these should be left for better days when the two neighbours have

achieved a dtente. This is perhaps the only instrument between the two countries that has stood

the test of time. Even during full-fledged wars and hostilities between Pakistan and India the

treaty has remained enforce and effective.

For some time now an interest group in India has been questioning the efficacy of the

treaty. This group advocates that the treaty besides placing undesirable restrictions on India does

not cater fully to the needs of J&K population. It is also argued that the treaty has outlived its

utility and needs to be abrogated or replaced with a new treaty. Pakistanis also have grievances

which have deeper roots. To start with, at the time of partition, if Muslim majority areas of

Gordaspur, which were originally meant to go to Pakistan, were not allotted to India, India would

not have any claim on Kashmir and the issue of water would not even have arisen. However,

even after partition it was Indias unwarranted stoppage of water in 1948 which initiated the

problem and the resultant mistrust. A number of Pakistanis are not happy to part with the threeeastern rivers under the treaty, as well.

Both the sides have grievances and some of them are not ill-founded. Nevertheless, we

cannot live in the past; the two countries have suffered a great deal because of their hostility and

mistrust and need to move on, for the sake of better future for their citizens. If we do not change

our attitudes and continue to grow seeds of suspicion and hatred, the future generations will not

forgive us. The Indus Waters Treaty has provided a platform for cooperation. It was brokered

after a considerable effort of the World Bank and perhaps, sincerity of purpose of the existing

leadership from both sides. Not only that the treaty should stay, it should in fact be used as a

basis for future cooperation. No document or instrument is final or eternal though. Once the twosides reach a certain level of understanding and cooperation there would be ample opportunities

to improve the treaty in the interest of both. The treaty provides opportunity for future

cooperation and joint management of the waters; it is therefore disappointing to note that since

the signing of the treaty no projects have been undertaken under the provisions of future

cooperation. It is no secret that the available waters of the Indus system are not being utilized

judiciously by both sides. The water availability vis--vis the growing demand is on the decline


13/13

and every drop of available water has to be utilized in the best and most economical manner.

However, neither country, at this moment has enough resources to harness the full potential

available. It is therefore, mandatory that both states should combine their resources and expertise

to benefit from the opportunity. This is not only imperative for the progress and prosperity of

Pakistan and India but diffusion of tension among these two nuclear neighbours could be catalyst

for the progress of the entire region.

It is proposed that a joint body should be formed either independently or within the ambit

of the Permanent Indus Commission to work out modalities and scope of joint cooperation. The

body composed of apolitical, technical experts should be tasked to find avenues for mutual

cooperation. Guidance and help of international regimes specializing in this field may also be

helpful. One of the impediments in cooperation and resolution of issues is Indias insistence on

bilateralism. This is evident in Indias relations with all its neighbours. For the good of the

Indian citizen and the region as a whole, India must show flexibility and magnanimity. Indus

Waters Treaty is a great example of peaceful resolution of conflicts with the assistance of a third

party. This success could have been emulated by the two countries in other areas of difference

with little sincerity and compassion. No doubt the ultimate aim would be to coexist peacefully

and cooperate without the help of others.

CONCLUSION

Water is essential for sustenance of life on the planet and therefore, nature has provided

the commodity in sufficient amount. However, due to uneven distribution of water the entire

mankind is not equally blessed. It is, therefore, our duty to preserve and use this common

heritage of mankind judiciously and with a cooperative spirit. Pakistan and India are blessed to

have a number of large rivers being fed constantly from the Himalayas. The two countries havealso inherited one of the largest irrigation networks of the world. Despite the foregoing, the per

capita availability of water is decreasing in both the countries while the countries are locked in

disputes over available resources. Indus Waters Treaty provides a mechanism and platform for

the two countries to manage their waters in a spirit of goodwill and mutual cooperation. This is

an opportunity to move from conflict to cooperation. This could act as a catalyst for peace and

prosperity for the people and who knows the spirit carried in the treaty may bring the two

neighbours closer to the resolution of other issues like Kashmir.

Documents

IndusWatersTreaty-FutureProspects