CONFLICT over the waters of the Indus is more than a century old.
British-era documents provide evidence that Sindh — when it was governed by Bombay — protested against the waters’ upstream diversion through a series of projects in the Punjab. The Bombay administration always viewed upstream diversion as detrimental to Sindh’s share, and argued against the construction of the Thal and Haveli canals in the 1920s.
The Punjab constructed canal colonies in the 1880s by diverting the water from the tributary rivers. Water withdrawal by Punjab during the Rabi season increased from 1,400 cusecs in 1867-68 to 28,000 cusecs in 1921-22. The Punjab’s canal-irrigated area swelled exponentially from three million acres to 14m acres between 1885 and 1947.
After the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty was concluded, Sindh lost a huge quantum of water as two big reservoirs and eight inter-river link canals were constructed to sustain the command areas of the three eastern rivers handed over to India.
Over the years, the water conflict snowballed into acrimony as the lower riparian accused the upper riparian of frequently breaching commitments and agreements.
For years, there has been no federal member from Sindh in Irsa.
The Pakistani Constitution provides instruments for conflict resolution.
However, institutions in this category have arguably lost their credibility in the eyes of the lower riparian, especially when a Supreme Court chief justice was seen to be passionately pursuing a funding campaign for new dams some years ago. Similarly, the complaint has been that the central government and its water management body Wapda act as an extension of the Punjab government.
The recent controversy over the construction of new canals on the Indus system has rattled Sindh. Unfortunately, two important dispute resolution forums — the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) and the Council of Common Interests (CCI) — suffer from a serious lack of credibility.
Irsa is mandated to regulate and distribute surface waters amongst the provinces as per the Water Apportionment Accord, 1991. In essence, it is an oversight entity meant to take decisions based on technical merit, and not the whims of the upper riparian. However, Sindh says that Irsa has succumbed to pressure and issued a water availability certificate (temporarily suspended by the Sindh High Court) for the Cholistan canal. Sindh’s concerns were overlooked by a majority vote at Irsa in favour of the controversial waterway, widening the province’s mistrust of the centre.
Earlier, Irsa had dangled the peculiar proposal of amending the law to make itself subservient to the centre. Shockingly, this was intended to render Irsa’s provincial representatives spineless before a mighty chairman to be appointed from the federal bureaucracy. The proposed amendment to the Irsa Act would have distorted the body’s federal character.
Sadly, no federal member has been appointed from Sindh in Irsa for the last 15 years. The seat has been occupied by Punjab-domiciled officers in violation of the law that makes the appointment of a federal member from Sindh mandatory.
The Sindh High Court recently issued a decree to implement Clause C of the executive order issued by former president Gen Pervez Musharraf in July 2000. The executive order — later protected under Article 270-AA of the Constitution — recognised Sindh’s vulnerability as the lower riparian and made the appointment of a federal Irsa member from Sindh compulsory.
The constitutionally empowered CCI is seen as underpinning the federation. Under Article 154, it is supposed to “formulate and regulate policies in relation to matters in Part-II of the Federal Legislative List and … exercise supervision and control over related institutions”.
Article 155 delineates the CCI’s role in water-related conflicts, stipulating that “if the interests of a province, the federal capital or any of the inhabitants thereof, in water from any natural source of supply or reservoir, have been or are likely to be affected prejudicially”, the aggrieved party can lodge a complaint with the CCI.
Article 154 (4) stipulates that “the decisions of the Council shall be expressed in terms of the opinion of the majority”. Although Sindh has lodged a complaint against Irsa’s water availability certificate for the Cholistan canal, there is little hope of any solace. Going by the book, the CCI can simply outvote Sindh as four of the eight members of the present body belong to Punjab. One federal minister from KP is also a member of the ruling party. Such a skewed structure erodes the CCI’s impartiality and credibility.
In the spirit of the federation, sensitive matters should be settled with consensus at Irsa and the CCI. Amendments to the structure and rules of business to this effect have become necessary to restore the withered credibility of these institutions.
The writer is a civil society professional.
Published in Dawn, April 21st, 2025
