Indus Water Basin Treaty

Published November 22, 2008

THIS is apropos of K. H. Zia`s letter, `Indus Treaty` (Nov 16), wherein at the very outset he has disagreed with Manzoor Chandio (`Renegotiation of the Indus Treaty`, Nov 11) that the Indus Water Treaty was the chief cause of the current water crisis in Pakistan. He further argued that had that been the case, the country should have been experiencing similar shortages for the last 40 years.

However, while dilating on the issue, Mr Zia has admitted that “shortage has been caused by the silting in the Mangla and Tarbela reservoirs that has reduced their storage capacity to less than half. It has severely impacted agricultural production that can no longer meet the demands for food and other staples for the ever-increasing population”.

Obviously these dams were an integral part of the Indus Water Treaty. Secondly, as history shows, serious differences between the provinces on distribution of water are not a recent phenomenon but are as old as the age of the Indus Water Treaty itself.

The Indus Water Treaty was executed by Ayub Khan, a self-proclaimed field marshal and the first dictator who sowed the seed of martial laws and abrogating constitutions in the country. Ironically far-reaching decisions impacting the social, political, economic and cultural values of the country, such as the Indus Water Treaty, playing frontline state for the US in Afghanistan in 1979 and again in 2001 which changed the contours of entire civil society were taken by these despots.

The confrontation started when in April 1948 India closed the canals originating from Firuzpur and Madhupur headworks, located on its side although rivers flow was towards Pakistan.

As a result, West Pakistan could not get irrigation water for more than five weeks which affected 1.5 million acres of land. The World Bank offered its services to settle the dispute but till Gen Ayub overthrew the civil government, negotiations remained inconclusive.

According to the posthumous autobiography of Masood Khadarposh, a former federal secretary and an outspoken senior bureaucrat known for his integrity, austerity and efforts for the downtrodden, American ambassador David Lillian had initially suggested setting up of an authority on the pattern of `Tennessee Valley Authority`, grouping the entire Indus Water Basin into one unit similar to the group of seven states of the US (Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi) to manage the rivers system.

However, this proposition, though workable within one country, was not found feasible between two antagonistic states. Probably the novel scheme of `One Unit` originated from the above idea.

Ayub Khan ignored the public opinion, which was of course not very powerful as most of the politicians were behind bars on trump-up charges under the dreaded Elected Bodies (Disqualification) Ordinance 1959. Also, disregarding the apprehensions of the smaller provinces, Ayub Khan went ahead with the agreement in September 1960 handing over three major rivers, i.e. the Sutlej, the Ravi and the Beas, to India in a silver platter.

Masood Khadarposh, who has allotted a full chapter on the Indus Water Treaty, knew well that Ayub Khan, compared to a shrewd person like Pundit Nehru, was a weaker personality. As Khadarposh foresaw the consequences of the impending treaty to the nascent state, he sought an appointment with the CMLA so that he could explain the hazards of the agreement.

However, it was after the treaty was signed with the prime minister of India that Khadarposh got an audience with the CMLA. According to Khadarposh (page 208 of memoirs), Ayub Khan, who did not brook any disagreement, was so furious that he refused to listen to any reason and finally threatened him to keep his mouth shut.

I agree with Mr Chandio that in view of the changed circumstances, i.e. rapidly increasing population requiring more water, on the one hand, and fast depleting sweet water sources on account of global warming, on the other hand , the two countries have to sit together and hammer out a new treaty to settle disputes for posterity.

AMANULLAH TURK Dubai

Opinion

Editorial

Dangerous law
Updated 17 May, 2024

Dangerous law

It must remember that the same law can be weaponised against it one day, just as Peca was when the PTI took power.
Uncalled for pressure
17 May, 2024

Uncalled for pressure

THE recent press conferences by Senators Faisal Vawda and Talal Chaudhry, where they demanded evidence from judges...
KP tussle
17 May, 2024

KP tussle

THE growing war of words between KP Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur and Governor Faisal Karim Kundi is affecting...
Dubai properties
Updated 16 May, 2024

Dubai properties

It is hoped that any investigation that is conducted will be fair and that no wrongdoing will be excused.
In good faith
16 May, 2024

In good faith

THE ‘P’ in PTI might as well stand for perplexing. After a constant yo-yoing around holding talks, the PTI has...
CTDs’ shortcomings
16 May, 2024

CTDs’ shortcomings

WHILE threats from terrorist groups need to be countered on the battlefield through military means, long-term ...