'Water Wars' and the Indus Water Treaty

Udai Malhotra

The "water wars" paradigm, often mentioned in media and security analyses of transnational water sharing, has brought into greater focus the issue of water sharing and management. It contends that in view of climate change and increasing global population, particularly in the global South, secure access to water will be central to national security agendas and could lead to conflicts over water rights.

The contemporary debate about the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in India is dominated by the water wars archetype; as a result, water security concerns have been manipulated for political purposes. The treaty between India and Pakistan signed in 1960 is a good example of cooperation between two countries that have otherwise faced an uneasy relationship that has even degenerated into war.

Using the issue of water to score political points is cumbersome and is already being given more than its deserved hearing. Recently, in response to water shortages in Pakistan and grim outlooks on the availability of water in the region, a claim of "water terrorism" by India has been propagated to stir up anti-Indian sentiment in Pakistan. At an event organized recently by the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations, the Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, Sharat Sabharwal, refuted all these claims and stated unequivocally that, "India has been scrupulously providing Pakistan with its share of water in keeping with the Indus Water Treaty…We have never hindered water flows to which Pakistan is entitled … and we have no intention of doing so."

While tensions over water are unlikely to be the sole factor leading to the outbreak of war, they could certainly be a contributory factor. The possibility of conflict between India and Pakistan over the issue of transnational water sharing in the Indus River Basin exists and serious, evidence-based grievances can be addressed through existing provisions of the IWT. An excellent example of this was the design issues pertaining to the Baglihar dam, where objections raised by Pakistan were examined by a neutral expert after the Indus Commission was unable to resolve the issue. In that instance, India's right to establish run of the river projects was upheld. The spirit of the Treaty, rather than its letter, was given consideration and an agreement was reached that was acceptable to both sides. Currently, the main allegation from Pakistan has been that India is responsible for diverting its water. This accusation, however, is not evidence based.

In such a situation, an open and fair-minded approach to address Pakistan's IWT grievances could serve to enhance cooperation between India and Pakistan on other fronts. The Indian government's actions on the water issue can have a strong positive influence over public opinion in Pakistan. Even if the accusations against India of hindering water flows are false, the vulnerability of Pakistan to a lack of water is quite real.

Towards the end of his speech in Karachi, Indian High Commissioner Sabharwal clarified that India is not responsible for Pakistan's water scarcity problems, stressing that "India has nothing to do with these issues of water management that are internal to Pakistan". India holds most of the cards when it comes to controlling the flow of water, and Pakistan is in a difficult position as serious water scarcity concerns are looming on the horizon. While India's actions have been within its rights as outlined in the IWT, as the upper riparian and regional power India has before it a unique peace-building opportunity that can be exploited to mutual advantage.

Water security is needed for the whole region and water scarcity exacerbates a common concern. Rather than simply rebutting the rhetoric emanating from Pakistan that is being used to politicize the issue of water, India should foster a dialogue by addressing how both countries can cooperate on this issue, emphasizing water security to mitigate other regional security concerns. Viewing this issue through the prism of the "water wars" paradigm rather than a human security model is limiting the creative possibilities for addressing the underlying issues. A modified approach could contribute to diffusing the tense relationship between the two countries.

Udai Malhotra is Research Intern at Observer Research Foundation