Analyze the Flaws and Advantages of IWT and outline the future action plan that Pakistan should

contemplate with regards to the Treaty

NAME: SYED TAHA MASHHOOD ROLL NO: 2012-02-0191 COURSE: CRITICAL ISSUES IN PAKISTAN FOREIGN POLICY INSTRUCTOR: SHAHARYAR M. KHAN

Water, like religion and ideology, has the power to move millions of people. Since the very birth of human civilization, people have moved to settle close to it. People move when there is too little of it. People move when there is too much of it. People journey down it. People write, sing and dance about it. People fight over it. And all people, everywhere and every day, need it -Mikhail Gorbachev

Amidst the hostilities and history of conflict that exist between two countries India and Pakistan, Indus water treaty (IWT) is one agreement which has stand test of the time to be termed as successful. The rationale of water wars has been found wanting as India and Pakistan, despite being dependent on water for their survival, have cooperated on water related issues. However, in the wake of current situation, especially from the Pakistani side, the power and scope of the treaty to solve water problems has been questioned. Nonetheless, I would argue that Indus water treaty if implemented in the spirit of cooperation and trust while tailoring to the needs of the time can be the biggest agreement on international cooperation on trans- boundary water dispute between two rival nations. Pakistan being semi arid country and its economy heavily relying on agriculture has huge dependence on water for existence. This dependence is further aggravated because Pakistan is lower-riparian and has Indus River as the only major source of water. This dependence along with inimical relationship with India caused Pakistan to move into water cooperation. It all started in 1951 when Pakistan and India sat and negotiated on the water issues. With the help of good offices offered by World Bank and painstaking discussions between two countries Indus water treaty came into existence in 1960. IWT divides the Indus Basin system between India and Pakistan by allocating three eastern rivers of the basin, namely the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej to India and the three western rivers Indus, Chenab and Jhelum to Pakistan. IWT has given India limited rights to use water of western rivers for agricultural use, domestic Use and non-Consumptive Use. Furthermore, IWT allows India to generate hydroelectricity on waters of the western rivers through run-of-the river projects, i.e. without altering the flow of water. (YAQOOB) Some people, especially on Pakistans side, believe treaty to be biased against India. They think it is form of an agreement which is exploitative of lower riparian at hands of upper riparian, and was imposed on Pakistan by the World Bank. Some criticized that Pakistan under the

dictatorship was forced to comply on treaty that has damaged their water interest more than it has benefited. However, all these criticism hold little grounds. Firstly Pakistan was sovereign country who willingly signed the treaty. Secondly, given the weak situation Pakistan was in as being lower riparian and geographically very small to India, IWT was the best Pakistan could have achieved to safeguard its water sources thus securing its existence. For Pakistan IWT has given some insurance about the use of water from the allotted three rivers in the treaty. Otherwise, how better off Pakistan would have been in the control and use of water without the treaty, given the hostile relationship with India? Moreover, given the limitations provided in the treaty about Indias interference in these three rivers and the conflict resolution mechanisms Pakistan have been able to get smooth flow of water (except on some occasions) from the hegemonic upper riparian India. There are various advantages that have accrued in the past and much can be gained in future through IWT. Major advantage of IWT is that for 50 years it has provided Pakistan with secure supply of water. Moreover, through the long negotiation process Pakistan and India have sets of rules in the form of IWT (different from the international water laws) and more akin to political and physical realities of Indus basin (Concannon). It has given framework on which both the countries can work together for better cooperation in the future. IWT has the major advantage that it has proper dispute resolution mechanism. Legal provision of treaty enables Pakistan to raise and solve its concern through proper mechanism. Disagreements between the parties on the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty are put into three categories: questions are examined by the Permanent Indus Commission; differences by a neutral expert; and disputes by a court of arbitration (AKHTAR). Permanent Indus commission (PIC) is one important provision in IWT, which was created to increase cooperation in implementation of treaty from both sides. PIC is there as a regular link of communication between two countries. Commission also intends to increase cooperation on water development and settling any concerns arising between the countries. Lastly, article VII of the Treaty enables future co-operation between two countries for optimum development of the rivers for common good of both countries. This is one advantage of IWT as it keeps the door open for future water discourses to take place. Currently, IWT despite of being a comprehensive legal document to address the concerns of both countries is not able to solve them. IWT would have been efficient treaty of water cooperation if

Pakistan and India had a trustful and friendly relationship. Such friendly relationship would have led to the use of mutual verification process to measure water flows and efficient resolution of disputes (Briscoe, "War or Peace on the Indus?"). However, both countries are hostile to each other with history of mistrust and deceit which has made IWT a flawed and weak agreement. In regards to the loopholes of IWT, Indian side believes that Pakistan uses the treaty to put an unending set of obstacles in Indias project without any legitimate concerns. Pakistan operates on the bases of rhetoric rather than informed opinions. Whereas, Pakistan argues that India being the upper riparian and hegemonic power in south Asia, molds articles of the treaty in its favor and work with impunity to build larger number of upstream projects on western rivers thus causing an existential threat to Pakistans security (Briscoe, "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?"). This apprehension on Pakistani side is because of some inherent flaws that lie in IWT and some flaws that ensue because of poor implementation of IWT. One major flaw in IWT is that it does not specify the maximum number of hydro power projects that India can built. This has become grave concern for Pakistan because of the re-interpretation of IWT after Baglihar dam issue. And when the number of Indian projects are small it wont affect the timing of the water flow into Pakistan, but with huge number of Indian hydro power projects on Pakistan rivers, even with limited storage capacity, India will be able to substantially alter the timing of flow of water into Pakistan. India currently has 40 day live storage capacity (Briscoe, "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?"). This issue has to be discussed in detail in order outlines the flaw of IWT. Baglihar case has given Pakistan a huge setback in its position to limit Indias hydro power storage design vis--vis IWT. India started the Baglihar project in 1999 on the Chenab River. Pakistan believed that the Indian design violated the IWT because the dam included gated spillways which meant that manipulate-able storage was larger than that allowed under the IWT. Indian side argued that if they were unable to operate the reservoir more flexibly, it would rapidly fill with silt, as had happened in the earlier Salal project. (Briscoe, "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?"). PIC unable to solve the deference went to seek neutral expert under World Bank RJ. In 2007 Neutral experts verdict came about which was in relation to IWT provision for updating the implementation of the treaty with the accumulation of new knowledge. Verdict said what has emerged as global good practice for silt management would

be impossible with the rigidities of the treaty; and therefore India should be allowed to draw water out of the dam at lower levels than those specified in the treaty. (Briscoe, "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?")

This caused a big blow to Pakistan as this verdict reinterpreted the IWT to remove the basic physical protection that limits manipulate-able storage of water, which Pakistan had in IWT to inhibit and check for Indias ability to alter the timing of flow of water into Pakistan. Furthermore, as per Pakistani fears and non compliance with IWT, India did not go with the IWT-specified process for filling Baglihar and disrupted Pakistan water flow in 2008 which badly affected the farmers of Punjab in sowing season (AKHTAR). Now this case has set up the precedent for the future Indian hydro power projects. And India is building number of such projects like Sawalkot, Pakuldul, Bursar, Dal Huste, Gyspa etc and all of these projects together can pose a huge problem for water flow in Pakistan especially in critical periods i.e. dry season and kharif season. Similarly, India is building one major project, Kishenganga, on higher elevation of river Jhelum. Pakistan is also building its dam on western scheme on lower elevation. This pose an inherent conflict in regards to water flow to Pakistan and its use of water. However, IWT is unable to sort this problem. (Briscoe, "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?") Another Flaw in the treaty is that it doesnt provide any mean flow of water to Pakistan. India claimed that decreasing flow of water into Pakistan is caused by overall decrease in water provision due to receding glaciers and climate change. However, as the mechanism of measuring flow on both sides of the border is not transparent and efficient, there is a fear of manipulation of numbers about water availability. As measuring on Indian side is done by Indian authorities, Pakistan believes that India is forging the numbers and disrupting the flow of waters. This in turn points to an additional flaw in the treaty that IWT does not provide any Independent third party apparatus of measuring the water flow on both sides of the border to culminate the problem of mistrust. Although permanent Indus commission is technically a sound body but Pakistan high commissioner pointed that it has no mandate to solve the water problems. He even mentions that using PIC more effectively is just rhetoric as Indian commissioner for Indus water never solves

the dispute efficiently and delay things as an excuse for having a broad based consultation at home (Waseem). This inherently posses one important flaw in the Treaty that there is no limited time frame given in which disputes have to be solved. This leads to delay in reaching solution. IWT has been there for 50 years in safeguarding water supplies to Pakistan somewhat because of its efficient formulation and also because of the fact that India did little to exploit the hydro power resources of river Jhelum and Chenab; but situation has changed. At partition, per capita availability of water was 5,000 cubic meters and today it is reduced to 1,000 cubic meters per capita which is well below the globally accepted threshold for water scarcity (Briscoe, "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?"). As john Briscoe also argues that things have changed because of the growing investment in hydropower in Indian-held Kashmir; because of the declining water availability in Pakistan; because the Baglihar verdict of the Neutral Expert has gutted the IWT of its essential balance, because the World Bank has withdrawn from its once-heroic engagement with the Indus (Briscoe, "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?").Decreasing water availability coupled with Indias aggressive expansion of hydropower project has made Pakistan vulnerable and put it into direct confrontation with India. But the question remains what possible solutions Pakistan have for this problem and what course of action it should contemplate with regards to IWT in the future. Fisher and Ury point out that disputants often take positions in a conflict that can obscure their actual interests and aims. Therefore, they recommend separating the issues from the positions adopted by the disputants (Alam 105). The issue at hand for Pakistan is to secure its water supplies coming from India and stop any projects that can disrupt flow of water into Pakistan. And the overall issue is to optimally use the water of Indus basin so that population of both India and Pakistan can benefit. There are some possible actions that Pakistan can take to resolve this issue. However, each and every alternative has to be analyzed to solve the problem as stakes are too high to risk this water co-operation between India and Pakistan. In regards to future actions, some circles in Pakistan believe that Pakistan should get away with IWT as its not serving the cause which its intended for. However, what I believe is that completely scrapping the IWT or re-inventing a new treaty is not a solution. Firstly, because of trembling economy and war on terrorism Pakistan is in very bleak situation both economically and geographically; and given the fact that India is the rising super power and regional hegemon,

it is hardly possible that Pakistan would be able to get a bargain which is better than IWT. Secondly, it took nearly 9 years, with the help of World Bank good offices, to reach some sort of water cooperation in the shape of IWT and today Pakistan cant afford to invest such a long time in re-inventing IWT as timely action by Pakistan is crucial to secure water supplies. So, Pakistan should invest all its effort under the gambit of IWT and make its case stronger vis--vis India and international community through concerted action at different avenues.

Usually India while discussing the IWT and water issues with Pakistan criticizes the water management practices inside Pakistan. Indian high commissioner Sharat Sabarwal clearly pointed out the poor water management and lack of storage capacities inside Pakistan while discussing IWT and emphasized that in order to solve water issue Pakistan has to solve its internal problems (Sabarwal).A report from Pakistani ministry states that out of 152 MAF that flows into Pakistan through Indus River and its tributaries, 38 MAF flow into the sea. This wasted water can be utilized for power generation and agricultural use during winter season if proper water storage is built. According to the World Bank report in 2005, water loss in canal heads and farms is as high as 30 %. Furthermore, Pakistan has only 150 cubic meters per person storage capacity compared to 5000 cubic meters in US and Australia and 2200 in china. (Sabarwal) It is clear that Pakistans water management and storage capacity is very inefficient. So, in order to make our international water concerns more pronounced and stronger, Pakistan has to first grow stronger by implementing better water management techniques and has to build more storage projects. Water losses and inter provisional issues have to be sorted out. Efficient irrigation system has to be employed. Hydro power project has to be built as all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries exploit over 70% of their hydroelectric potential whereas Pakistan exploit a little over 10% (Briscoe, "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?"). All these efforts inside the country will give signal that Pakistan is serious about solving its problem of water security and then international world will also take us seriously, for managing water disputes with India.

Telemetry system has to be installed as early as possible to have transparent and up to date information about water flows across two borders. However, such system has to be moderated by third party and should be implemented properly to keep the transparency of the data.

Pakistan should use its diplomatic resources at different levels to propel its case i.e. at UN and with other friendly nations and make them realize the importance of Pakistan water issue. Pakistan should push US to support its cause of water security at different levels from UN to world back in order to stabilize current relationship. As the fact remains that currently India is enjoying dominant role and increased presence on international and bilateral diplomatic forums because of its growing stature as economic power. To counter that, Pakistan has to be vigilant in raising its concerns by making its case stronger and efforts more pronounced.

Trust and good relationship will boost the implementation of IWT in its true spirit. Pakistan has to engage in confidence building measuring because hostile relationship with India harms Pakistani interest more as its more dependent on India for water security. John Briscoe relates an incident when opinions on Indian side before Mumbai attacks used to be mild about water provision to Pakistan. However, afterwards it has got stricter. He says that when the issue of using water against Pakistan was raised. In the past the standard Indian response was you are falling into the Pakistani habit of mistrust and bad faith India would never use water as a weapon. Now the tone is strikingly and stridently different after Mumbai we, India, should use anything and everything, including water. (Briscoe, "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?") Pakistan has started right by giving India an MFN status and opening up trade. Other confidence building measure like cricket diplomacy, cultural exchanges etc should also take place to mellow down tone and create an environment where two countries can sit together for future co-operation on water issues.

What is pertinent from the discussion above is that there is a dire need of co-operation between India and Pakistan on new terms tailored to current context and with greater sincerity. The context and terms under which IWT succeeded for 5 decades has changed. Population of Pakistan is increasing at around 2%, climate change poses a great threat to water availability as snow melt contributes to 45% of flow of Indus water, ground water is depleting at a faster rate and water management techniques are very poor. India is building new projects on Pakistani rivers and itself requires greater supply of water to continue growth. Current situation, if posses a

greater challenge can also provide with the opportunity to co-operate under the new spirit of IWT.

Work Cited
AKHTAR, DR SHAHEEN. "EMERGING CHALLENGES TO INDUS WATERS TREATY Issues of Compliance & Transboundary Impacts of Indian Hydroprojects on the Western Rivers." (2011). Print. Alam, Undala Z. "WATER RATIONALITY: Mediating the Indus Waters Treaty." (1998). Print. Briscoe, John. "Troubled Waters: Can a Bridge Be Built over the Indus?" Economic&Political WEEKLY 13 Dec. 2010. Print. Briscoe, John. "War or Peace on the Indus?" THE NEWS 3 Apr. 2010. Print. Concannon, Brian E. "Indus Waters Treaty: Three Decades of Sucess, Yet, Will It Endure." (1989): 55. Print. "PAKISTANS WATER CONCERNS." Web. <http://ipripak.org/factfiles/ff127.pdf>. Radosevich, George. "Global Water Law Systems and Water Control." 40. Print. Sabarwal, Sharat The Indus Water Treaty, High Commissioner of India to the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations and Pakistan-India Citizen Friendship Focrum, MEA, Apr. 2010. Print Waseem, Muhammad Tahir The Indus Water Treaty, Joint Commissioner for Indus waters, Apr. 2010. Print YAQOOB, ASMA. "INDUS WATERS ACROSS 50 YEARS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGIES OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN." (2010). Web.