THIS is with reference to the article ‘From myth to malice’ (March 6). It is worth pointing out that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has served Pakistan’s water interests very well despite continual Indian attempts at filching Pakistan’s share of water.
The said article criticised IWT for its supposed failure to ensure an equitable and environmentally sustainable water-sharing agreement between the two countries. It did so without alluding to the context in which the treaty was signed in 1960. Our selective amnesia should not prevent us from highlighting the clear and present danger to Pakistan’s food security due to the Indian closure of Central Bari Doab and Depalpur canals in 1948.
The five-week canal closure had caused a loss of Rs20 million to Pakistan’s economy at the time. Pakistan was justified in not trusting the intentions of a hostile upper riparian. IWT, therefore, was a security insurance for a lower riparian in the absence of a strong international legal regime for water-sharing. Besides, international law on water-sharing had not sufficiently developed back then to protect the rights of lower riparians. Since both India and Pakistan have not ratified the 1997 United Nations Water-courses Convention (UNWC), the only legally binding instrument for dispute resolution available is IWT.
Only the naive would repose trust in a predatory upper riparian state like India that has left no stone unturned to harm Pakistan. Consider, for example, the plight of a lower riparian like Egypt, which is at the mercy of the upper riparian Ethiopia. The dams over Nile are deemed a national security threat by Egypt, which now has taken the case to the UN Security Council, and is demanding a legally binding treaty for the use of dam water.
In the case of Tigris-Euphrates Basin, Turkiye’s construction of dams under the Southeastern Anatolia Project has significantly reduced the flow of waters towards lower riparians Syria and Iraq as they do not have the recourse to a legally binding water-sharing treaty with the upper riparian.
The article also mentioned that India was permitted the storage dams over Western Rivers with unrestricted limits of cumulative impact. This obviously is not the case as India is only permitted the use of water for domestic and non-consumptive purposes, including run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects that do not alter the downstream flow regime of the rivers, and the treaty allows only for a cumulative storage of 3.6 million acre feet (MAF) to India. The flow in Indus River to protect the environment can most effectively be ensured through suitably located dams that could regulate the river flows in the lean season and prevent calamitous flooding.
Instead of repeatedly targeting a treaty that has safeguarded Pakistan’s food and water security, the Indian illegality of holding the treaty in abeyance needs to be highlighted, which is an existential threat to Pakistan’s national security.
Brig (retd) Dr Raashid Wali Janjua
Islamabad
Published in Dawn, April 9th, 2026