Pulwama: Indian water-sharing remarks send Pak knocking at WB, UNSC doors

In letters to the World Bank and UNSC, Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has said senior members of the Indian govt are 'threatening to use water as a weapon'

In the aftermath of the Pulwama terrorist attack, India’s talks of choking water supply to Pakistan, even from rivers allocated to it under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), are likely to raise serious concerns in Islamabad. The world’s third-most water-stressed country according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Pakistan has in the past warned that such a move might be perceived as "an act of war". 

Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has asked the World Bank to take note of India’s recent statements on IWT. A 1960 water-distribution accord signed by the then India Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan President Ayub Khan, IWT had been brokered by the World Bank. 

Further, in a letter to the president of the UN Security Council, Qureshi on Friday alleged that "senior members of the Indian government are threatening to use water as a weapon". The letter also said that "the long-standing legal arrangements agreed under IWT are thus being imperilled". 

The UN itself has for some time been wary of the risks to the treaty. In a 2017 report, it had said scarcity of water since the early 1990s had brought IWT under strain and its "survival appears weak".

Pakistan-based terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) had claimed responsibility for the February 14 Pulwama attack, in which over 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel lost their lives. 

India’s Union water resources minister Nitin Gadkari on Thursday said Pakistan, by supporting terrorist activities against India, had killed the "spirit" with which the IWT agreement had been signed. He added that he had received demands from people that "Pakistan should not get a single drop of water". However, he clarified that a decision to that effect could not be taken at the level of his department. Only those at "higher levels" in the Government of India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi could decide at an appropriate time. 

The 59-year-old IWT had been signed to "maintain harmony, peace and brotherhood between the two nations", Gadkari said, asking what was the point of maintaining good relations with Pakistan if it continued to support terrorists and hurt India. He further said that he had instructed his department to prepare a detailed project report and technical design specifying the places where even Pakistan's share of water under the IWT could be stopped. 

Under IWT, water from the three eastern rivers — Ravi, Sutlej and Beas — had been allocated to India for exclusive use. And water from the western ones — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — had been allocated to Pakistan. However, India was permitted to use the waters of these western rivers for specified domestic, non-consumptive and agricultural use as provided under the accord. 

Gadkari said: "Pakistan should immediately stop supporting terrorists. Otherwise, we will spend as much money as required and stop even this water (Pakistan’s share under IWT) from flowing there, and only Pakistan will be responsible for this." The minister added that India had decided to stop its share of water flowing into Pakistan and supply it to Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir. The government later clarified Gadkari was only reiterating its stated policy with regard to supply of water to Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir. 

Hours after Gadkari's remarks, Secretary of Pakistan's Ministry of Water Resources Khawaja Shumail told his country's media that Islamabad had no concern or objection to India diverting water of eastern rivers and supplying it to its people or using it for other purposes. He added that IWT allowed India to do so. However, Shumail said Pakistan would express its concerns and raise strong objections if India used or diverted water from western rivers, on which Pakistan has rights under IWT.

A day later, Gadkari was reported to have told Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers in Madhya Pradesh's Jabalpur: "(Pakistani Prime Minister) Imran Khan and others in that country are asking how India could stop water? Remember, if you continue to support and export terrorism to India, Pakistan won't get even a drop of water." 

According to Pakistani media reports, Islamabad has asked New Delhi not to "escalate" tensions further. An unnamed Pakistani official told the Times of Islamabad that "India cannot stop Pakistan’s water", and that Pakistan had told India that such statements could prove "dangerous" for the region and should be "avoided".

In the wake of the Pulwama attack, the Indian government has so far made no official statement on any plans to abrogate IWT, which has survived three wars between the two countries. Also, abrogating the treaty is easier said than done, given the consequences India might face. 

"Despite the drumbeat of water-related threats, I don't see New Delhi abrogating IWT. For India, backing out of IWT would have major reputational, geopolitical, and geological risks. Given that IWT is an international treaty, co-signed by the World Bank, New Delhi would invite international condemnation if it unilaterally backed out," explained Michael Kugelman, senior associate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a think-tank in Washington DC. 

"Additionally, if India backed out of IWT and cut off Pakistan's water supply, Islamabad's friend China could retaliate by building dams to cut off water flow into India. And, if India built big dams to bottle up water and prevent it from flowing downstream, that could cause extensive flooding in India," Kugelman added. 

'An act of war'

In September 2016, Sartaj Aziz, the then advisor to the Pakistani prime minister, had said a unilateral revocation of IWT by India "can be taken as an act of war". This was in reaction to Modi’s remarks after the Uri attack the same month that "blood and water cannot flow at the same time". 

At the time, India had decided against abrogating the treaty but expedited the construction of three dams — Pakul Dul, Sawalkot and Bursar — on the Chenab. Further, it had been decided that India would utilise "legal rights in the treaty to the fullest" and review the construction of the Tulbul navigation project, which had been stopped in 2007. 

According to Kugelman, Islamabad will not react well to India's water-related threats, given the catastrophic humanitarian implication an Indian revocation of IWT could have in a water-insecure Pakistan. “Islamabad's concern is surely mitigated by the realisation that India's threats are just that — threats," he said. 

Pakistan could run dry by 2025

Pakistan has much at stake when it comes to IWT. According to a 2015 IMF report, "Pakistan depends on a single source, the Indus system and its tributaries, for most of its water supply needs." Pakistan is "facing the prospect of water scarcity", the report says, adding that the country "is among the world’s 36 most water-stressed countries, with its agricultural, domestic, and industry sectors scoring high on the World Resource Institute’s water stress index". 

According to the report, Pakistan's per capita annual water availability dropped from 5,600 cubic metres at the time of Independence to 1,017 cubic metres in 2015, and it was projected to decline further. 

An annual per-capita water availability of less than 1,700 cubic metres is considered a water-stressed condition. If this number for a country slips below 1,000 cubic metres, it is understood to be facing a water scarcity. 

"Demand for water is on the rise, projected to reach 274 million acre-feet (MAF) by 2025, while supply is expected to remain stagnant at 191 MAF, resulting in a demand-supply gap of approximately 83 MAF," the report added. 

A report by the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) paints an even more worrisome picture. Warning that the country might suffer absolute scarcity of water by 2025, the report says that Pakistan touched the water stressed mark in 1990 and crossed the water scarcity mark in 2005.

Pakistan's economy faces a particularly acute risk. Another 2015 IMF report, 'Is the glass half empty or half full?', lists the top 10 countries in terms of water withdrawals in 2010. Pakistan’s water intensity rate (cubic metres of water used per unit of GDP), shows the report, is the world's highest — slightly over twice that of India's. This, Kugelman wrote the same year, suggests that no other country's economy "is more water-intensive than Pakistan's". 

What's more, as of 2009, irrigation and other agricultural activities consumed 90 per cent of Pakistan's water resources. According to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, agriculture constitutes the largest sector of its economy. "Majority of the population, directly or indirectly, (is) dependent on this sector. It accounts for 24 per cent of GDP and half of employed labour force, and it is the largest source of foreign exchange earnings," the bureau said. 

To quote the World Economic Forum's (WEF's) Regional Risks for Doing Business 2018 report, "water crises" are the biggest risk faced by the Pakistani economy, ahead of terrorist attacks and unmanageable inflation.