FROM a hydrological perspective, the water distribution and management plan of the Indus Waters Treaty is one of the most unscientific strategies when it comes to the world’s large transboundary river basins.

Consequently, it has not been able to succeed — legally, environmentally, economically or politically. Before the damage already done becomes irreversible, the IWT must be re-evaluated through the lens of rigorous science.

The IWT is unique in the sense that it was devised to divide the waters of the Indus basin between Pakistan and India at a time when no country was facing a water shortage in the basin area, which was divided by a political boundary in 1947. The Standstill Agreement of 1947, signed between Pakistan and India to keep the Indus basin waters flowing the way they were before the political division, is a testimony to this fact.

However, after the expiration of the agreement in 1948, East Punjab began shutting down the canals that flowed into Pakistan from the headworks now under its control — not because India was running short of water but out of political malice — thus depriving the civilian population of Punjab (Pakistan) of life-giving water supplies for irrigation. This constituted a war crime under international law, which stipulates: “It is … prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless, for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.”

In 1948, the chief minister of East Punjab, Dr Gopi Chand Bhargava, ordered the closure of canals, and Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian prime minister, supported him. Thus began a water conflict, which had nothing to do with water scarcity in India or Pakistan.

Before the damage already done becomes irreversible, the Indus Waters Treaty must be re-evaluated.

Lawyer David E. Lilienthal, in his essays published in 1951, suggested that, by flowing into the sea, the Indus waters were being ‘wasted’, and that India and Pakistan should build infrastructure to ‘utilise’ it. To date, this unscientific view of a lawyer, instead of being scrutinised by experts, remains at the heart of the treaty to justify every new large infrastructure project in both Pakistan and India.

Lilienthal further suggested in his essays that “counting noses in Kashmir” (referring to the proposed plebiscite) would not “solve any problems” and in order to prevent war in the region, the two countries, instead, needed to develop their water resources. He told the then World Bank president that there were business opportunities for the bank in the development of infrastructure in India and Pakistan. The bank thus got involved in brokering a treaty between the two countries and also invited other peace-loving countries to ‘contribute’ through aid and grants to finance infrastructure projects in the Indus basin.

It must be kept in view that Lilienthal was, at the time, a consultant to Lazard Freres, who, in turn, was a consultant to the World Bank. Thus there was a clear conflict of interest in Lilienthal’s proposals.

Pakistan and India went on an infrastructure-building spree aimed at preventing the Indus from flowing into the sea, while the rest of the world was made to believe that the treaty would prevent war between them.

More than six decades since the treaty, there have been multiple wars between the two countries, with tensions and hostilities continuing to this day. The treaty failed to achieve its aim. To date, it is serving financial institutions and enabling building contractors to continue business in the region, albeit with devastating environmental and social consequences.

Click to see more

Consequent to the massive infrastructure development based on the treaty — dams, diversions and unprecedented shutting down of major rivers — the Indus delta has been deprived of life-sustaining silt/ water supply, and the world’s fifth-largest mangrove forest (a significant global carbon sink) has almost vanished; the empty riverbeds of the Ravi and Sutlej are being used for untreated wastewater, municipal garbage and industrial waste; toxic waste is being dumped into the rivers and it enters the food chain, causing severe health issues; groundwater is contaminated with arsenic in irrigated areas; millions of tons of salt, which used to drain out into the sea, are accumulating; water logging and salinity continue to destroy farmland, the natural environment and urban landscapes situated in the basin; wetlands alongside the rivers have vanished; and so on. The list is endless.

In line with today’s global mind — which is aware of the environment, health and socioeconomic issues — we need to restore our degraded rivers — from the headwaters to the delta; we need to bring back the lost wetlands, vanishing mangrove forests and disappearing Indus delta; we need to remove garbage from and prevent the pollution of our waterways; we need to restore the lost ecological services of entire river systems, making our river water potable again. For this, we must invoke new economic engines for a water economy founded on sustainability, thus leading to peace and harmony among those inhabiting the river basin.

Wasteful and outdated irrigation methods invoked since the time of the Raj are the prime reason for the unreasonable damming and diversions in the Indus basin.

Click to see more

Not only did the IWT strengthen outdated irrigation practices, encouraged more water diversions and led to the shutting down of complete rivers, it also paved the way for environmentally destructive and expensive large hydropower projects (touted as ‘cheap’ and ‘green’) in the Indus basin. This must change in the 21st century — and with our current knowledge base and tools, a more systematic and sustainable manner of water-sharing can be evolved.

We must bridge the distance between outdated ideas and the current global mind to shape a healthy, sustainable and peaceful environment in the Indus basin for future generations. The treaty must be renegotiated along these lines.

The writer is an expert on hydrology and water resources.

Published in Dawn, October 4th, 2024