|
Can India
abrogate Indus Water Treaty?
By Engr E.A.Malik
Not many among the present
generation of Pakistanis may be aware of the perverse
Radcliffe Award and its terrible ramifications. At the time of
partition of India, provinces of the Punjab and Bengal were to
be divided according to Muslim majority areas.
Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a renowned British judge, came from
England to be chairman of the Boundary Commission to demarcate
boundaries between East and West Punjab and West and East
Bengal- later East Pakistan. The Award was to be announced on
13th, August 1947. But it was mysteriously delayed till 17th
August after coming into being of dominions of Pakistan and
India on 14th and 15th August 1947 respectively. To the utter
dismay of Pakistan it became evident that the delay was not
without purpose.
The Muslim majority tehsils of Ferozepore and Zira were
contiguous with West Punjab. Radcliffe had retained these
tehsils in Pakistan in his original award finalized on 9th
August due to be announced on 13th August. Accordingly the
West Punjab boundary would have extended beyond east bank of
the Sutlej river. Pakistan would have retained Ferozepore
Barrage and headworks of Depalpur Canal coming to Pakistan and
of Ganga Canal going to Bikaner State (now Rajisthan). But the
Award was later changed to give these tehsils unjustifiably to
East Punjab to retain control of Ferozepore Barrage and
headworks of two canals in Indian hands.
There is another sorrowful aspect hardly known to the public
at large. But for this perverse award, giving Muslim majority
tehsils of Ferozepore and Zira to East Punjab, the framework
of the Indus Water Treaty would be radically different. Nor we
would have lost Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers, as would be
evident from what follows.
Canal water dispute: On 31st March 1948, India closed
headworks of two canals coming to Pakistan. These canals - now
called Central Bari Doab Canals (CBDC) were the Lahore branch
passing through the City of Lahore and the Main Branch,
crossing Ferozepur Road at Luliani. These irrigated the areas
of Lahore division.
The summer-season Dipalpur Canal taking off from Ferozepor
headworks, due to reopen on 15th April, was kept closed by
India as well. Water was denied to hundreds of thousands of
newly arrived refugees settled on millions of acres of
cropland irrigated by the affected canals. There was no water
for standing wheat crop or for ensuing sowing of cotton, rice
and sugar cane. Coming unexpectedly and unilaterally it had
impacted deeply the newly created country. People were stunned
and the rulers awakened to the gravity of the situation. All
protests proved water on duck's tail. Why India chose to stop
water so long after Pakistan came into being on August 14,
1947? Why not earlier?
In order to settle disputes between India and Pakistan arising
from the division of physical and other assets, an Arbitral
Tribunal was set up at the time of partition. The tenure of
this Tribunal expired on March 31st, 1948 - moments before
India closed the gates of the canals coming into Pakistan. Had
India stopped waters earlier, Pakistan could have taken the
matter to the Arbitral Tribunal. Why had Pakistan not raised
the issue of canal waters in the Tribunal earlier? That is the
$64 billion question. No history book may tell the real story.
I was associated with the canal water dispute at times.
Suffice to say here that our representatives on the Partition
Committee lacked prudence and foresight. They proved no match
for their Indian counterparts.
Agreement of May 1948: What a coincidence that it was 54 years
ago on 5th May 1948, when it became known that an agreement on
water dispute with India had been concluded at Delhi on 4th
May. Pakistan's then Finance Minister Ghulam Mohammad and West
Punjab Ministers Mumtaz Daultana and Sardar Shaukat Hayat
signed it. The "cure" was worse than the malady. They signed
away our historic riparian rights over waters of the canals
coming from India. And they agreed to arrange alternative
sources for water. For the mean while they also agreed to pay
India for the cost of water and conveyance facilities. One
could claim that it was signed under duress. Be that as it
may, historic water rights should not have been surrendered so
easily.
Our leaders, on return, instead of informing the people of the
true story of what had happened at Delhi, resorted to a grand
cover-up. Construction of a new canal - BRB (Bombanwala - Ravi
- Bedian - Dipalpur) was announced on war footing as a
national emergency. it was to convey River Chenab water to
areas irrigated by three affected canals. Scores of students,
both boys and girls, were brought to dig the canal, symbolic
of patriotic fervour aroused by full-throated media hype. BRBD
canal ostensibly was presented as a tiff-off to India. It
proved counter-productive.
Indus Waters Treaty: First of April 1948 - the day India
stopped water, was the beginning of the canal water dispute.
After protracted negotiations under the aegis of the World
Bank, it culminated in the Indus Waters Treaty. Mr. Nehru,
Prime Minister of India, President Ayub Khan of Pakistan and
Mr. Iliff Vice President of World Bank signed it at Karachi on
19th September 1960. It was an international treaty supported
by USA, UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - the
"friendly countries".
According to the Treaty, full flow of the Ravi, Beas and
Sutlej (eastern rivers) was given to India for her exclusive
use. Waters of the Chenab, Jhelum and the Indus (western
rivers), with some reservations, remained for Pakistan. Total
average annual inflow of eastern rivers was 33 maf
(million-acre-feet).
At Independence India was using 8 maf and Pakistan 18 maf.
Pakistan lost water rights of 25 maf of eastern river flow.
The Indus Basin Project included construction of Mangla and
Tarbela dams besides a network of barrages and link canals to
carry water to areas previously irrigated by eastern rivers.
Bulk of the cost was borne by the Indus Basin Development Fund
contributed by the above noted 'friendly countries' and
administered by the World Bank. Pakistan shared a part of the
costs. In nutshell, India got away with full eastern river low
of 33 maf in perpetuity virtually for a song. The Treaty has
since been in operation more or less satisfactorily till
recent Indian threat to abrogate it.
India's threat: Stoppage of water has been a weapon of war
since time immemorial. It could be terribly potent in an arid
country like Pakistan. For us it is not only a question of
drinking water but also of growing food and fibre - cutting
edge of the Indian threat.
Irrigation constitutes the backbone of our socio-economic
milieu, sustaining 70 per cent of the population. Pakistan
hosts world's largest canal network. It commands an area of 35
million acres in the Indus plains. It is served by 60,000 km
of canals and over one million kms of field channels.
Primary source of water is rivers - the Indus and its main
tributaries of the Jhelum and the Chenab. The latter two have
their sources in occupied Kashmir. The Indus rises in Tibet.
After flowing in Ladakh, it enters Pakistan. Any move to stop
inflow of western rivers could be more lethal in overall
impact than a full-fledged military action or even a nuclear
attack. Obviously Pakistan would be hard put to sustain if
somehow India was to stop/curtail flow of western rivers by
abrogating the Treaty unilaterally. Let us see how far is the
threat plausible?
Regardless of the hullabaloo of our rulers of the time in
favour of the Treaty, it was, in my judgement, a very unfair
deal for Pakistan. It was hammered out not without political
under- currents. Nor it was all a blessing for Pakistan. It
suffered an incalculable loss forever of its historic water
rights of 25 maf as noted earlier. However, be as it may, we
must continue to perform our Treaty obligations faithfully. At
the same time we must remain vigilant against contrary Indian
moves.
The Treaty was all India's gain without loss of a drop of
water. In April 1948 she wanted to establish her right over
waters of only two canals namely CBDC and Dipalpur. On 19th
September 1960, she got away with waters of not only two
canals, but full flow of three rivers for the exclusive use in
perpetuity.
As regards Indian threat of ending the Treaty, I think it is
easier uttered than done. The Treaty is not a bilateral
agreement between India and Pakistan. It is an international
document signed by India, Pakistan and the World Bank. There
is no way India could abrogate it unilaterally.
Should however, India chose to terminate it to starve millions
of Pakistanis just to avenge a terrorist attack on its
parliament, it would cause an uproar in the world. There would
be strong protests against India and sympathy and support for
Pakistan by the international community in general and the
World Bank in particular and the 'friendly countries'
mentioned earlier. Not the least significant would be the fact
that India's termination of the Treaty would lend strong
support to Pakistan's long standing contention that India
could not be trusted for abiding by international commitments.
Morals apart, there is no way, in my opinion, India could
materialize her threat in the face of ground realities. Why?
Effective January 01, 2002, India could stop Samjhota Train,
PIA flights over her territory and Lahore-Delhi Bus service.
These services stopped since India could physically block
entry of such vehicles into her territory.
Water could be stopped to Pakistan either by storing full flow
of all the western rivers or by diverting it into canal
networks. These rivers in their upper reaches pass through
high Himalayan mountain ranges. There exist no large storage
dams nor it seems feasible to create reservoirs of such an
order in the narrow river valleys to hold back all flow of the
western rivers to prevent it from entering into Pakistan. For
diversion of water no barrages nor canals exist nor could
easily be built to carry river water to plains in India. (Only
on the Chenab it could divert some water). Even if economics
were no consideration, it would be technically almost
impossible to build dams and canal networks across a rugged
inhospitable Himalayan terrain. For the sake of argument, if
religiously fanatic present Indian regime, in order to "teach
a lesson to Pakistan", were to commit the folly of building
such a system of great hydraulic works, it might take decades
what to talk of a jiffy and may cost more than all the gold in
its kitty to commit such an economic harakari. (suicide).
The Indian threat of starving and flooding Pakistanis
apparently is but a tactic to raise the morale of its people
and an attempt at frightening Pakistanis. It is more than
evident from the foregoing arguments that there should be no
cause for immediate concern over Indian threat. It is not easy
for it to end the Indus Waters Treaty unilaterally. Nor it has
physical means to starve or flood Pakistan forthwith.
Implications of abrogation: However, having said that, as a
water resources professional, I cannot help feeling deeply
concerned at the loss of total flow of eastern rivers- primary
cause of our worsening water scarcity. If India's abrogation
of the Treaty became inevitable, I may be pardoned to counsel
fortitude and prudence rather than getting panicky and
tearful.
Why? In 1960 when the Treaty was signed, the population of
Pakistan was 42 million. Today we are 142 million. Our stakes
are now much higher. If India, some how, stopped the flow of
our rivers, millions of people would starve by being denied
"life blood" of irrigation water. India would not be able to
face global wrath over horrifying scenes of starving and dying
people vividly brought into millions of homes world-wide on TV
screens.
Pakistan would have every justification to approach the World
Bank and the 'friendly countries' - all politically effective
in world affairs, for intervention. Under the Treaty Pakistan
had surrendered her historic water rights of 25 maf of eastern
river flow in exchange for replacement facilities from western
rivers.
If India went back on her commitment of non-interference with
western river flows, the Bank and the friendly countries must
support Pakistan and compel India to fulfil her Treaty
obligation. India's abrogation of the Treaty would bring the
situation, in a way, back to square one i.e. April 1, 1948 -
the day water was stopped into our canals.
We could reassert our historic water rights with full force.
Of course renegotiation of the whole issue would not be easy
in the face of Indian duplicity and intransigence. However, if
effectively hauled up she could not deny all the forums of
international law of riparian rights, natural justice, human
rights etc. Nevertheless if worse became worst, Pakistan - a
fledgling neighbour in 1960, is a potent nuclear power to
reckon with today.
Courtesy Dawn May
28, 2002
Views presented
here are of those of the writer and Pakissan.com is not liable
them. |
Pakissan.com;
|
