“India is stealing Pakistan's water” has become a familiar cry at the popular level, echoed in the media, picked up by the jihadists, and acquiesced in at the official and expert levels through silence in Pakistan.
Writing in these pages some time ago (March 3, 2010), this writer had expressed the apprehension that perceptions of Indian wrongdoing on water might become widespread in Pakistan and might affect India–Pakistan relations even at the people-to-people level. That is no longer an apprehension; it is a reality. This is a very disturbing development that needs to be understood in India and responded to appropriately. This article will try to set forth the Pakistani perceptions for the information of the general public in this country.
The first point to note is that in Pakistan, as in India, there is a sense of an imminent (or already present) water crisis. The per capita availability of water is said to have declined; groundwater is said to be under stress through over-exploitation; river flows are reported to be diminishing, and some rivers to be so polluted as to be no more than sewers; and water supply in cities is reportedly intermittent and unreliable. All this is very familiar to us in India. Whether the crisis in Pakistan can be averted or minimised through better management is an internal matter for the people of Pakistan to consider. However, the perception of a crisis tends to lead to the attribution of that crisis to Indian wrongdoing. “India is stealing Pakistan's water” has become a familiar cry at the popular level, echoed in the media, picked up by the jihadists, and acquiesced in at the official and expert levels through silence (or even aggravated by official statements). This is a new development. Until recently, there were criticisms of particular Indian projects on the western rivers as not compliant with the Treaty, but no accusations of ‘water theft' by India.
Accepting that Pakistan faces a water crisis, how is the connection to India established? The answer is that some studies reportedly indicate a reduction in the flows in the western rivers, and it seems to be readily assumed that if the flows show a reduction, the upper riparian must have reduced them. India would say that this is a non sequitur, and that if there are reductions in flows, they cannot forthwith be attributed to Indian action. It is clear that both the fact (and extent) of reduced flows and the factors responsible need to be studied.
The second point to note is that Pakistan continues to be uneasy about Indian projects on the western rivers despite the many stringent safeguards provided by the Treaty to protect Pakistan against certain perceived dangers. What answer can India give to that continuing uneasiness, except a request to look at the provisions of the Treaty? Pakistan could have been totally free of anxiety if the Treaty had given it the exclusive use of the western rivers with no provision whatever for even limited use by India; but such a Treaty might not have been signed by India. What both sides agreed to and signed was the Treaty in its present form; and what both sides can do now is to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Treaty. Unfortunately, the combination of permissive and restrictive provisions in the Treaty, and the density of technical detail in it, make for an adversarial situation in the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), leading to a constant tug of war, instead of what is desirable, namely, a spirit of constructive cooperation. As for members of civil society, the media and academia in either country, they tend to be guided by whatever officialdom says, because they have no other sources of information.
The third important component in Pakistan's anxiety, whether at the official level or at the level of civil society, is the worry caused by the number of projects that India is planning on the western rivers. Pakistan is apprehensive that even with strict compliance with the provisions of the Treaty in each case, India might, taking all the projects together, acquire a measure of control over the waters of the western rivers and might potentially be able to inflict harm on Pakistan. (A military variant of this view is that with the assistance of such structures India will be able to use water as a weapon of war.)
Two questions arise here: the number of projects that India is planning, and their cumulative potential for harm to the lower riparian. Some Pakistani writings talk about a hundred projects. There seems to be no basis for that number. It appears that India might have in mind some thirty projects or so. It is not clear whether all those projects will in fact be undertaken, but assuming that they are, it is necessary to consider whether all of them will together give India a greater degree of control; enable large storage; make it possible for India to withhold water from Pakistan, or release stored waters and flood Pakistan. The Indian answer would be that most of these will be small projects; that all these are run-of-the-river projects; that given the restrictive provisions of the Treaty, there is hardly any scope either for the retention of waters to the detriment of the lower riparian or for flooding the lower riparian; and that assuming that India wants to harm Pakistan it can do so only by openly violating the Treaty and by first harming itself, its own people, and its own projects (built at great cost).
Having taken note of both Pakistani and Indian views on this question, one would still suggest that the hypothetical fear of ‘cumulative impact' needs to be looked at. Quite apart from Pakistan's worries (real or imaginary), there is room for some concern even from the Indian point of view: by building such a large number of projects on these rivers what are we doing to the river system as a whole and to the ecological system of which they are a part? Perhaps this too is an imaginary fear, but it seems desirable to look at this carefully before dismissing it.
As evidence of possible harm, Pakistan might mention two cases: the initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir, and the planned diversion of Kishenganga waters. The first was a very minor and relatively innocuous matter which was blown up into a huge controversy. One has written about this elsewhere. In any case, the issue has been closed at the last meeting of the PIC. The Kishenganga diversion, which Pakistan considers to be a violation of the Treaty and India holds to be specifically permitted by the Treaty, is going to the Court of Arbitration, and need not be discussed here.
In the light of the foregoing, what needs to be done? This writer has some suggestions: (i) a joint study needs to be made of the fact and extent of reductions in flows in the western rivers and the factors responsible; (ii) whenever the Treaty prescribes an operational condition (as in relation to the initial filling of Baglihar), there should be institutional arrangements for the joint monitoring of compliance at the relevant point (there are none in the Baglihar case); (iii) the working of the Permanent Indus Commission should change from a spirit of tug of war to one of constructive cooperation (but unfortunately this is a function of the political relations between the two countries); (iv) there should be a review of the totality of the planned projects on the western rivers from the ecological perspective as well as from that of Pakistani apprehensions; (v) in both countries, the media, academia and civil society should refrain from echoing official positions and should examine matters independently; and (vi) to facilitate this, all data and information regarding the working of the Treaty should be in the public domain. Going beyond those specifics, it is necessary to take note of and allay what has been called the “visceral lower riparian anxiety,” but is that feasible in an ambience of distrust and hostility (again visceral) often sedulously fostered by official disinformation?
(The writer is a former Union Secretary for Water Resources.)
Keywords: India, Pakistan, water rights
Comments:
Before extending such a nice gesture to our neighbours, shouldn't we focus on such measures between Indian states ? Do we have a clear and agreed upon solution for Cauvery, Periyar and most recently Babli ? One can not justify India doing this for Pakistan, after neglecting concerns of its own people.
I think the Indian government and the Indian mission in Pakistan should be more proactive in explaining the Indian projects to Pakistani experts and public. For example, they could be a media campaign there and invite eminent Pakistani water experts and media persons in an organized tour to the project sites to clarify their questions and misconceptions. If the GoI can work to explain our projects and intentions to the experts and media and through them to the general public, that would help to eliminate or at the very least reduce the current misconceptions. Though such an approach will take time the Indian government should do this, apart from engaging at the political and bureaucratic level.
There are already many issues burning between India and Pakistan, this is just like adding fuel to the fire. Instead of adding fuel, one can add 'water' and subside the fire. Both nations' representatives should come together and discuss solutions with an open mind. Problems can be solved and good relations can be established only when acted upon solution(s) that are arrived by unbiased discussions and agreeable to both the nations.
The writer suggests that the "media academia, and the civil society should refrain from echoing official positions". I would say its the role of the media to guide the academia and the civil society by not pandering to the officialdom. For the people, it is not a matter of should, its only a matter of what is fed to them. With that in mind, I appreciate the writer's attempt at providing an unbiased perspective to the layperson. More such articles are the need of the hour, not only on the water issue but any international issue, which are usually marred by the media's irresponsible bias.
Should water issue not be linked to "terrorism" originating from Pakistan or have we just accepted to live with our people getting killed by terrorists without any sort of retaliation ?
It is heartening to know that there are people in India who are willing to engage with Pakistan in a constructive, engaging and in good spirited manner.
As a Pakistani, I believe that most of the noise and accusations we make against Indian dam and other water projects is a product of our own failure to find solution to Pakistan's needs because of petty political issues.
I immensely appreciate the writer's approach and suggestions.
I cannot comment on the water issues from a expert's perspective since I am not an expert in water resource management. But I would like to say one thing. It is good to see that at least joint water issues are finally being reported in Indian media. Where in past they were completely absent from Indian media.
On the other hand these issues are bing reported in Pakistan for quite sometime and for obvious reasons, since Pakistan is located in the downstream and whatever happens in the upstream does effect water issues in Pakistan. I must clarify that I am not questioning anything in terms of legality as per Indus water treaty rules.
Some of the Pakistani concerns could be valid - like using water as a weapon of war, India being the upper riparian state. In such a situation, Mr Iyer's idea about a joint and cooperative effort to allay Pakistani fears should be both appreciated and followed up on, particularly in an atmosphere where fear is a leading cause of extreme reactions.
The article should be an eye opener for the right thinking people from both sides of the border. The development is really disturbing and worrisome. We all know water disputes can spiral out of control as we have seen in the cases of Cauvery, Mullaperiyar etc. Kudos to the author.
The issue related to water is not new but it has gained momentum in the last few years. Now the infalting water issue is a test for our goverenment. If we are using water to generate electricity then the best way to overcome this situation is to share the generated electricity. For this both goverenments should meet and mutually decide about the building of power plants on the Indus River, regarding funding, the generated electricity sharing and other imp factors. It is a daunting task but we need to take a bold step and prove that this will help both of us to grow economically.