The move comes after New Delhi’s recent suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). This move has further strained relations with Pakistan and heightened fears about water security in the already fraught region. Signed originally in 1960, the treaty prescribes how six of the Indus river basin’s rivers must be shared. It divides the three eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—between the two countries and gives the three western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—to Pakistan. This decision comes in the wake of a major militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. India accuses Pakistan of backing cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, an accusation that Pakistan denies.
The emergency use of the IWT suspension threatens to be immensely damaging to Pakistan. This is often the case in the dry season, when base flows diminish. Over 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture and approximately one-third of its hydropower generation depend on the waters from the Indus basin. Instead, analysts have long warned that India’s new willingness to tamper with water flow could backfire in catastrophic fashion. This move could put Pakistan’s food and energy security in jeopardy.
India’s recent decision to stop sharing hydrological data with Pakistan adds another layer of complexity. This information is crucial for advisory-based flood forecasting and long-term water resource management plans. According to Mr. Thakkar, an expert on the IWT, “Unlike in the past, India will now not be required to share its project documents with Pakistan.” India is now free to flush silt from its reservoirs without an advance warning. This move may cause irreversible harm to people and ecosystems downstream in Pakistan.
China’s increasingly powerful hand in the region further complicates the picture. The country has constructed multiple hydropower plants in Tibet and is advancing projects like the world’s largest dam on the lower reaches of Yarlung Tsangpo, which transforms into the Brahmaputra as it enters northeast India. Indian officials fear that these recent changes could ultimately give China significant leverage over river flows. This shift would make an already fraught political climate for Pakistan all the more precarious.
India claims it needs to change the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) to meet new demands for irrigation, drinking water, and hydropower that climate change has driven. From Pakistan’s perspective, these infrastructure projects are all treaty violations. Islamabad is understandably fearful that India’s military actions will result in lowered river flows, jeopardizing its agricultural output and overall water availability.
Hassan F Khan, a water resource expert, notes that a more pressing concern arises during the dry season when “the flows across the basin are lower, storage matters more, and timing becomes more critical.” This sentiment highlights Pakistan’s fear that India’s control over rivers’ resources may tilt water availability during sensitive periods.
The IWT’s framework permits limited flexibility but does not allow for unilateral actions that could severely impact one party’s access to water. While India’s attempts to re-evaluate its commitments under the treaty are indicative of shifting national priorities, most notably a surge in nationalism, they inflame mounting tensions. As pointed out by our nation’s defense experts, that alignment has increasingly created a dangerous balance between competing national priorities and our international treaty obligations.
India’s infrastructure, though vast and well-developed, is mostly focused far from the Pakistan frontier. Consequently, experts argue that India faces limitations in holding back substantial volumes of water from the western rivers during peak flow periods. Indian analysts contend that inadequate infrastructure has hindered their ability to fully capitalize on their 20% share of water from the Jhelum, Chenab, and Indus rivers under the treaty.
To counter India’s moves, Pakistani leaders have been sending strong and dire signals. They assert that any attempt by India to halt or control river flows would be perceived as an aggressive act. “Stopping water flow will be considered as an Act of War,” they declared. This rhetoric underscores how serious the reality on the ground is and the danger of conflict escalation amidst water scarcity.
The IWT has an impressive historical legacy that underscores the continued struggle for equitable water access. This fight plays out in an area that has experienced increased geopolitical tensions. Each country continues to navigate complex relationships influenced by domestic needs, international pressures, and environmental factors.
Leave a Reply