Water is a critical resource for any nation, essential for survival, economic growth, and agricultural development. In South Asia, where water scarcity and climate change exacerbate existing tensions, the control and distribution of water have become increasingly contentious, particularly between Pakistan and India. This article delves into the historical context of the Pakistan-India water dispute, the numerous violations of the Indus Waters Treaty by India, and the potential consequences of these conflicts for both nations.
The Indus Waters Treaty: A Brief Overview
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed between India and Pakistan in 1960, facilitated by the World Bank, to resolve the water-sharing disputes that arose after the partition of British India. The treaty allocated the three eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—to India, while Pakistan received exclusive rights over the three western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. This agreement was hailed as one of the most successful water-sharing treaties in the world, providing a framework for cooperation between the two countries.
However, despite the treaty’s success in reducing overt conflicts for several decades, tensions have periodically flared up due to India’s construction of dams and hydroelectric projects on rivers allocated to Pakistan. These actions have been perceived by Pakistan as violations of the treaty, leading to diplomatic protests and, at times, threats of conflict.
Violations of the Indus Waters Treaty by India
- Wullar Barrage Project (1984)
- One of the first major violations of the IWT by India was the construction of the Wullar Barrage (also known as the Tulbul Navigation Project) on the Jhelum River in 1984. Pakistan objected to this project, arguing that it violated the treaty’s provisions by altering the flow of water into Pakistan. After years of diplomatic negotiations, the project was suspended, but it remains a point of contention between the two countries.
- Baglihar Dam Dispute (2005)
- The Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River was another significant violation of the treaty. Pakistan contended that the design of the dam did not conform to the IWT’s specifications, as it allowed India to control the flow of water into Pakistan. In 2005, Pakistan took the issue to the World Bank, which appointed a neutral expert. The expert ruled in favor of India on some technical points but recommended modifications to the dam’s design to ensure compliance with the treaty.
- Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (2018)
- The Kishanganga project on the Jhelum River’s tributary was another major flashpoint. Pakistan argued that the project would divert water away from its territory, reducing the flow into the Neelum River, affecting agriculture and electricity generation. In 2013, the International Court of Arbitration ruled that India could proceed with the project but must maintain a minimum flow of water into Pakistan. Despite this ruling, Pakistan continues to express concerns about the project’s impact on its water resources.
- Ratle Hydroelectric Plant (Ongoing)
- The ongoing construction of the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant on the Chenab River has once again brought the two nations into conflict. Pakistan argues that the plant’s design violates the IWT by giving India excessive control over the river’s flow. The issue remains unresolved, with Pakistan seeking international arbitration.
India’s Threats and Their Implications
India has periodically issued threats to revoke the IWT or alter its implementation, particularly during times of heightened tensions with Pakistan. For instance, following the 2016 Uri attack, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi famously stated, “Blood and water cannot flow together,” indicating a potential hardening of India’s stance on water-sharing. Such rhetoric escalates tensions and raises the specter of water being used as a weapon, which could have dire consequences for regional stability.
Implications for Pakistan:
- Agricultural Impact: Pakistan is heavily reliant on the Indus River system for irrigation, with over 90% of its agriculture dependent on these waters. Any significant reduction in water flow could devastate Pakistan’s agriculture, leading to food shortages, loss of livelihoods, and increased poverty.
- Energy Crisis: Pakistan also relies on the Indus River system for hydroelectric power generation. Reduced water flow would diminish electricity production, exacerbating the country’s ongoing energy crisis.
- Social Unrest: Water scarcity could lead to widespread social unrest in Pakistan, particularly in regions like Sindh and Punjab, which are heavily dependent on the Indus River. Such unrest could further destabilize the country, leading to internal conflict.
Implications for India:
- International Repercussions: Unilaterally altering the IWT or reducing water flow to Pakistan could damage India’s international reputation, particularly with its neighbors and the broader international community. It could also lead to international legal disputes, potentially resulting in sanctions or other punitive measures.
- Environmental Consequences: Large-scale dam construction and river diversion projects could have significant environmental consequences, including the displacement of communities, loss of biodiversity, and increased risk of natural disasters such as floods and landslides.
- Pakistan’s Top Think Tanks Unite for Maritime Future
- Climate Change in Pakistan: A 77-Year Overview
The Role of Climate Change
Climate change is exacerbating the water dispute between Pakistan and India by altering precipitation patterns, reducing glacial melt, and increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. These changes are likely to reduce the overall availability of water in the region, increasing competition for scarce resources.
For instance, the Indus River, which is primarily fed by glacial melt, is particularly vulnerable to climate change. A reduction in glacial melt due to rising temperatures could significantly reduce the river’s flow, exacerbating water scarcity in both Pakistan and India. This, in turn, could heighten tensions between the two countries, as they compete for dwindling resources.
Possible Solutions and Future Outlook
To prevent the water dispute from escalating into open conflict, it is crucial for both Pakistan and India to engage in meaningful dialogue and seek mutually beneficial solutions. Some possible steps include:
- Strengthening the IWT: Both countries should work towards strengthening the Indus Waters Treaty by addressing its shortcomings and updating it to reflect current realities, including the impact of climate change. This could involve incorporating new mechanisms for dispute resolution and improving transparency and data-sharing between the two countries.
- Third-Party Mediation: Given the deep mistrust between Pakistan and India, third-party mediation by an impartial international body, such as the World Bank or the United Nations, could help facilitate dialogue and prevent the dispute from escalating.
- Joint Water Management: Both countries could explore the possibility of joint water management initiatives, such as collaborative dam projects or shared irrigation schemes. Such initiatives could help build trust and reduce the likelihood of conflict over water resources.
- Investing in Water Conservation: Both Pakistan and India should invest in water conservation measures, such as improving irrigation efficiency, reducing water wastage, and promoting the use of alternative water sources, such as rainwater harvesting and desalination.
Water dispute
The Pakistan-India water dispute is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful management to prevent it from escalating into a full-blown conflict. While the Indus Waters Treaty has provided a framework for cooperation for over six decades, it is increasingly being tested by India’s actions and the growing pressures of climate change. To ensure long-term peace and stability in the region, both countries must engage in meaningful dialogue, strengthen the treaty, and seek innovative solutions to manage their shared water resources.
Credit: Mr Waseem Shahzad Qadri and Abu Bakr alvi also contribute to this article
