Turning the tap off

Lt Gen PK Grover (retd)
Former State Information Commissioner, Punjab

MUtual trust and cooperation are fundamental to international relations. The attack in Pulwama has again challenged just this. Indo-Pakistan relations are at an all-time low. Upholding the supremacy of our national interests and the close connect between India’s foreign affairs and its fundamental security and development priorities, India’s resolve to punish Pakistan for its continuous proxy war in J&K is an inevitable imperative. This is no time for benevolence when we stand challenged!

 One of the measures that should be considered is to revisit the Indus Waters Treaty under which Pakistan has been receiving about 80 per cent of the water from the Indus Basin System for the past 58 years. Pakistan is a water-stressed country, with each citizen getting about one-sixth of the share of water when compared to the situation at the time of Independence. The Indus provides water to over 80 per cent of Pakistan’s 54 million acre of irrigated land. Farming activities generate 21 per cent of the country’s GDP and any depletion in the discharge will derail its agrarian economy. 

That the Kashmir dispute and the water disputes are interwoven is an inescapable truth. J&K, even though an upper riparian state, is the worst affected due to restrictions imposed by this treaty. Pakistan has also adopted an obstructionist strategy since 1977 by raising issues regarding run-of-river projects under construction on the western rivers by India.

 After the Uri attack in 2016, while discussing punitive measures to be adopted against Pakistan, the PM had stated that ‘blood and water cannot flow together’. Steps were initiated to prevent waters of the eastern rivers authorised to India from flowing into Pakistan. India decided to fast-track the Shahpur Kandi Project, Ujh Hydro Electricity Project (198 MW) and Sutlej-Beas link. Further, a Ravi-Beas link was also proposed. The main beneficiaries being Punjab and J&K. Union Minister Nitin Gadkari recently confirmed this resolve of the government.

It was also desired to maximise, within the ambit of Article III of the treaty, the potential of India’s use of waters on the three western rivers, namely Indus, Chenab and Jhelum, in the areas of hydro-power, irrigation and storage.

 The recent sequence of events, especially in view of the proposed US withdrawal from Afghanistan, indicates no change in Pakistan’s attitude. Thus, there is a need to consider gradually diluting the provisions of the treaty as it is against our national interests to not do so and to simultaneously make Pakistan pay for its misadventures. We have sufficient grounds to justify our stance in all forums.

Firstly, the treaty was signed with undivided Pakistan to provide the requisite food security. Thus, ipso facto, the interest of former East Pakistan was also part of this agreement. Now that Bangladesh is an independent nation and India has a separate treaty with it, there is a need to review/cancel our agreement with Pakistan by invoking Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In the past, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has upheld the principle that a treaty may be dissolved by reason of a fundamental change of circumstances.

Secondly, Pakistan has been drawing the benefit of our benevolence without any responsibility. The treaty does not explicitly provide for an exit option, but we should justify India’s right to withdraw from the treaty citing Pakistan’s non-compliance with the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1373, a counter-terrorism measure binding on all member states. 

Thirdly, it is important to highlight that national interests are supreme. A large number of international treaties have been abrogated or reviewed. The US had abrogated the ABM treaty signed in 1970s as it no longer conformed to the existing security compulsions. Hungary dishonoured the treaty of 1977 vintage regarding the construction of a project on the Danube, in which the ICJ gave a ruling based on the customary international laws of sharing of water resources in terms of ‘equitable utilisation’ rather than the treaty. Dispute between the US and Mexico over the waters of Rio Grande was resolved based on the ruling that ‘the fundamental principle of international law is the absolute sovereignty of every nation against all others, within its own territory’. More recently, the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the South China Sea has been rejected by China. In fact, China has strengthened its presence in the region. Similarly, the US has recently announced it will withdraw from an ageing N-treaty with Russia.

Hence, it is a feasible proposition. But we should, at the earliest, finalise our plans to control and divert the western river flows. A technically feasible option is to divert the waters to the eastern rivers. Also, there is a need to construct large storage dams on the Jhelum and Chenab at strategic locations for power generation and to control additional discharge. Water in raised reservoirs can fulfil requirements in times of drought. This will also assist in charging aquifers to improve the ground water. Storage facilities will also safeguard against any inundation threat in North Kashmir. 

Our ultimate aim should be to follow the UN International Water Convention, which permits a nation sovereignty over the waters flowing through it. This will also give a major fillip to the economy of J&K. Infrastructural costs may be enormous, but it cannot be denied that water is an economic resource and recovery of the costs will only be a matter of time.