A 'WATER CRISIS' has emerged of late from the shadows to claim the spotlight in relations between Pakistan and India. It has begun to jostle with other items on an already crowded agenda in their dialogue in an unseemly and desperate bid to elbow them down and lay a false claim to primacy for itself at the top of the agenda.

The so-called 'water crisis' does not deserve that place. The thoughtfully crafted Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 has stood the test of time and provides for a precise and effective mechanism for conflict-resolution. Not all the problems, however, arise from a conflict of interests, rights or perceptions. Some have been created by climate change; some by increase of population; not a few are due to sheer mismanagement and waste. Disagreements on the Kishanganga project on the Indian side of the LoC in Kashmir and the Neelam-Jhelum project on the Pakistan side in Kashmir and the Nimoo Bazgo project in Leh will follow the procedures set by the precedent of Baglihar.

It is the larger problems that both countries must jointly face — climate change and consequential depletion of river flows, pressures of growing population and waste — in a non-partisan way; for, they affect both. It was in this spirit that the Indus Waters Treaty was concluded. The idea was mooted in a seminal article in the now defunct Collier's in the United States in the issue of Aug 4, 1951. It was written by David E. Lilienthal who had won fame as the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He suggested “a joint use of this truly international river basin on an engineering basis”. Ideas can shape policies and policies can change the political climate from an adversarial one to a cooperative enterprise.

A recent article by Dr Manohar Singh Gill in The Hindu of May 29 is refreshingly free from polemics and makes a powerful plea for cooperation between the two countries. Entitled 'Water crisis of east and west Punjab' it argues that both sides will have to rise above politics and focus on the water crisis which requires difficult solutions.

Dr Gill, now minister of youth affairs and sports at the centre, was a civil servant and served as development commissioner, Punjab from 1985 to 1988 and rose to be chief election commissioner. He recalls the warning given by Calvert, ICS, in 1928 in his classic book The Wealth and Welfare of the Punjab, of the dangers of undue dependence on rivers, dams, rainfall and tube-wells. In a convocation address at the Punjab Agricultural University in Ludhiana on Nov 5, 1998 he had predicted a water crisis and tension “within and without” Punjab on the question of water. What will be the state of things a decade from now?

He now writes “Sixty years have drastically reduced the comfort of 1950 on both sides. In Pakistan, the population growth from 50 million to 175 million has put an unacceptable burden. This has reduced the water availability per capita, per year, from 5,000 cubic feet in 1960 to 1,500 today. In our Punjab too, the population has increased over 60 years but at a lesser rate. In 1947, in east Punjab, 6,000 cubic metres of potable water was available per person, per year. Now it is only 1,600 cubic metres. It is estimated to fall further to 1,147 cubic metres in 2050.

“However, the nine lakh shallow tube-wells now dangle dry. The rich have started digging deep to 300 feet or more with submersible pumps to grab water. Small farmers who predominate cannot afford the cost and their wells are drying up. One deep tube-well will dry up 100 (tube-wells) around it. The water table has gone far down, and this situation will lead to social tension. ...West Punjab too faces these grave questions.”

Dr Gill offers concrete suggestions to be followed within Indian Punjab and in cooperation with the Punjab in Pakistan. “What should the two Punjabs do?” One proposal is to license and regulate tube-well sinking, including the permissible depth. “All must share fairly, and not take the maximum by means of wealth and power.” Monitoring is easy in this computer age. A high commissioner for groundwater management for the Punjab, with a competent scientific staff, would report directly to the chief minister and present an annual report to the state assembly. “Our British canals are in a state of collapse and flood irrigation will not do.”

He has a word of advice “for my friends in West Punjab”. Only recently the foreign minister of Pakistan, Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said in a TV interview that the total average canal supplies of Pakistan are 104 million acre feet while the water available at the four gates is about 70 million acre feet. “Where does the 34 million acre feet go? It is not being stolen by India. It has been wasted in Pakistan.”

Therein lies the wisdom of Dr Gill's advice. “Both Punjabs should face up to the water crisis, with courage and steady application of science. Else, they will be in trouble which won't go away” — a dire prediction, indeed. The solution lies in a joint harnessing of scientific knowledge. The Punjab Agricultural University in Ludhiana can invite an academic from Pakistan to serve on its faculty for a year or so and the Punjab University in Lahore can reciprocate. India-Pakistan seminars on the subject can help. So can joint studies by independent experts. The chief ministers of the two Punjabs have met before. They should do so again before long to set afoot a dialogue at various levels, academic and otherwise, which will help their respective national governments the better to understand the 'water crisis' and drive the demagogues to find other topics to keep their business going.

As for Pakistan and India, they would render high service to the people of Kashmir if, without prejudice to their rights under the Indus Waters Treaty, they set up a single joint project on the Kishanganga-Jhelum-Neelam sharing electricity for both sides of the LoC rather than two rival hydroelectric projects in the same area. The power-starved people of Kashmir will thank them for it.

The writer is a writer and a lawyer.