WATER issues between India and Pakistan are historically constructed, emotionally charged, and politically divisive.

Although water is technically not a ‘core issue’ between the two countries, differences over the use of rivers in recent years have the potential to derail any peace-making effort.

The situation is understandable, because with an exponential growth in population and with agriculture as the pivot of the economy, the demand for water for irrigation and electricity generation is straining the distributive arrangements that were settled by the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in 1960.

The distributive arrangements refer to the distribution and utilisation of the six rivers in the Indus basin: Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas.

The IWT, like many treaties, was a compromise, with both sides conceding from their earlier intractable positions. And while the treaty settled the water sharing issue, the perception remains unsettled. This necessitates the need to revisit the claims and counter-assertions raised during 1952 to 1960 to understand how the water debate is framed today, and its impact on energy generation in both states in the future.

There is probably no other issue that sparks misperception and mistrust as water does, and, in the context of India and Pakistan, emotions run dangerously high. There is a deep feeling in Pakistan that the partition of the Indus basin gave a certain physical capacity to India to cut-off vital irrigation water to Pakistan.

As a lower riparian, Indus water is a lifeline issue and questions the fairness of the treaty. The water issue is closely linked to the Kashmir issue, and this implies that any future peaceful settlement with India would have to still consider water distribution of the Indus system. For Pakistan water issues remain an unfinished business, although India considers the treaty a done deal.

The partition of the rivers changed the entire hydrography of the subcontinent — from being one political unit to two riparian states. Water sharing was mainly designed to deescalate the tension over sharing the rivers for irrigation and hydropower generation. That the treaty has survived hostility over the past 50 years deserves applaud.

But the fact that the ‘fairness’ of the treaty is being questioned today by both sides suggests that the distinction and separation between the ‘functional’ and ‘political’ aspects of the IWT have come under stress.

For a peaceful settlement of water issues, Pakistan and India should think of sharing the benefits of water, and this needs to be structured into the bilateral relations. Both the countries are in need of energy. For Pakistan, hydropower is its second largest source of electricity. In spite of the hydrological gradient that favours rapid flow of waters, particularly in the northern region, hydropower generation in Pakistan has been hampered by administrative problems, aging infrastructure, and significant inter-provincial rivalry.

This shows that the 1991 water accord needs to be revisited. Pakistan needs multipurpose reservoirs for hydroelectric power generation, as it ensures the availability of energy on a sustainable basis and at affordable prices.

India has a much higher ratio of storage to water flow as compared to Pakistan on the Indus basin. Estimates suggest that while Pakistan has only achieved 11 per cent storage capacity, India on its allocated eastern rivers has accomplished 52 per cent, and is utilising almost 80 per cent of the hydroelectricity potential. In comparison, Pakistan has only managed to harness 5,200 MW against a potential of 38,000 MW on the rivers.

History has proved that many complex trans-boundary issues have been resolved through mutual cooperation. Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam have been able to cooperate since 1957 within the framework of the Mekong River Commission, and they had technical exchanges throughout the Vietnam War.

Since 1955, Israel and Jordan have held regular talks on the sharing of the Jordan River, even as they were, until recently, in a legal state of war. A framework for the Nile River Basin, home to 160 million people and shared by 10 countries, was agreed in February 1999 in order to fight poverty and spur economic development in the region by promoting equitable use of, and benefits from, common water resources. The nine Niger River Basin countries have agreed on a framework for a similar partnership.

For a peaceful settlement of water issues, India must follow the guidelines of the 1997 United Nations Convention on Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. This convention has established two key principles to guide the conduct of nations regarding shared watercourses: ‘equitable and reasonable use’ and ‘the obligation not to cause any significant harm’ to neighbours.

In order to energise riparian relations, continued dialogue is crucial. Transparency will help in clearing the air, and will allow for shared benefits on the waters, and build ideas of ‘water peace’ rather than ‘water wars’. The thrust should be the sharing of data and joint research on climate change mitigation, and joint development of the vast hydroelectric and irrigation potential of the western rivers for mutual benefit. There is much sense and sensibility in the IWT that cannot be easily dismissed.

An early solution to the water issues between the two countries will be a step forward in resolving other outstanding issues that are of vital importance for peace and prosperity in the region.

Global experiences indicate that if a constructive and positive approach is adopted by the co-basin countries, it invariably contributes to the creation of a virtuous cycle where people of both countries become winners. The reverse of this approach equally brings into play a vicious cycle, where there are no winners.

The writer is a senior environmental expert at National Development Consultants, Lahore