One of the retaliatory actions being contemplated by India following the Uri attack is the review of the Indus Water Treaty, which includes even diverting the water from the three J&K rivers flowing into Pakistan. As a result, the Uri attack has brought the World Bank brokered treaty between the two nations under serious stress. On Monday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired a meeting of the senior officials to see how the government can use the treaty to bring pressure to bear on Pakistan to halt its alleged export of terrorism into India. Known for his pithy articulations of the complex issues, Modi had one ready for this occasion too: blood and water can’t flow together. Though a very reductive take on reconsideration of as important a treaty as IWT, the PM’s latest jumla is geared to address the public anger over Uri attack. Modi’s statement has lent a ring of seriousness to a threat earlier issued indirectly by the ministry of external affairs spokesperson Vikas Swarup. Talking to reporters, Swarup had hinted that in the absence of the mutual trust and cooperation, the treaty “can’t be a one-sided affairs”.
According to the Treaty signed in 1960, India got control over three eastern rivers – the Beas, the Ravi and the Sutlej – while as the waters of the three western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, Chenab – which also originate from India were to be allowed to flow unrestricted to Pakistan with India entitled to use a portion of the water for irrigation and run-of-the-mill hydro-electric power stations.
Now, with India threatening to review it, the issue has assumed far larger dimensions with experts warning about its profound geo-political implications in a region in throes of a new Great Game between global powers. Should India set this precedent, many experts argue even China, Pakistan’s ally, which has upper riparian rights over river Brahamputra can withhold its flow into in North-East India by diverting it for its own use.
The issue has a pronounced J&K dimension too. The people of the state see the treaty as an “abomination” to borrow the word of the NC leader and the former J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. And rightly so. If any party has suffered the most because of the treaty, it is the people of the state. The estimated annual losses because of it have been pegged at Rs 6000-6500 crores. In fact, In fact People’s Democratic Party when it was in opposition had made the treaty distinct political issue. The party wanted state government to regain control over its water resources. It also sought re-negotiation of the agreements with the National Hydro-electric Power Corporation which exclusively owns the power projects on the rivers in the state.
So shall Kashmiris support any review of the treaty? Very likely so. But it will be a very nuanced support than siding with one country in the emerging water war between India and Pakistan. As it is, the treaty prohibits the storage of the water from these rivers for power generation. The state can't build reservoirs, dams or barrage for irrigation or power. So, we would say: yes, review the treaty but not to starve neighbouring country of water, an act which can lead to war, but for a fair deal to J&K.
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 |  |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |
