Indus Waters Treaty and Resolution of Water Conflicts Between Two Nuclear Nations (Pakistan and India)

Indus Waters Treaty and Resolution of Water Conflicts Between Two Nuclear Nations (Pakistan and India). ABSTRACT This paper attempts to explore the correlation between identity and power as processes through the case study of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) as it has played a vital role in conflict resolution on water issues between the two historical rivals Pakistan and India and provides an insight into the evolution in the relationship between the two countries. The paper also explores the Indian hegemony and power asymmetry between the two countries in an historical context, as well as how the relationship between the two nations shaped and affected the water agreements between the two countries. The analysis focus on how discourses on both sides of the border highlighting the issue in the post IWT. The case study of IWT will be used as an evidence to support the above assertions, and a good example of cooperation between the two nuclear neighbours as against all the odds, both countries honestly maintained this treaty in letter and spirit over the period of three full wars (in 1947, 1965 and 1971 and one limited war in 1999), but now the future and stability of this treaty is questionable due to the lack of cooperation. The new water dispute is more serious and war threatening because of the global climate, politics and economic changes. Keywords: IWT, Conflict Resolution, Hegemony, Power Asymmetry, Cooperation, Nuclear, Up-stream, Down-stream Introduction “Fierce national competition over water resources has prompted fears that water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict. …If all the world’s peoples work together, a secure and sustainable water future can be ours.” (Kofi Annan, World Water Day 2002) 1. Transboundary Water Conflicts: Transboundary water resources are of two types: ground water resources and surface (rivers, lakes) water resources. It is comparatively harder to deal with water resources because water is continuously in motion, issues of control, jurisdiction and sovereignty are much more complicated as compare to static land resources and this task is even more difficult when water resources are shared by a number of political entities (Shamir and Kliot, 2001). The United National Register of International River Basins, in 1987, listed 214 international transboundary river basins in the world (UN Registry of International River Basins, 1978). In a recent inventory of transboundary river basins, 261 international rivers, covering 45.3% of the land surface of the earth were identified and listed (Wolf et al., 1999) while others extended the number of transboundary river basins to 280 (Green Cross, 2000 in Shamir and Kliot, 2001). Fresh water is an integral and fundamental component of food chain, source for energy production, economic and industrial development, agricultural growth, waste disposal and human health. However, distribution of this resource is disproportionate and erratic resulting in exploitation, which has escalated the scarcity of water and conflicts in many regions of the world (Gleick, 1993). Shared water resources are geographical facts. If such resources were managed equitably and negotiated sincerely between the nations, it could lead to peacefully organised national and international treaties. Otherwise, struggle to get hold of the resource could lead to severely violent unpredictable conflicts (Ibid). Different nations have different uncertainties over shared water resources, which have increased their vulnerability to conflicts over water. Most of the tensions appear especially in parts of southern and central Asia, central Europe and the Middle East where the evidence of water-related conflicts extends back to 5000 years. The probability of increased water related conflicts evolving into an issue of ―high politics‖ in these areas is soaring, because water is a scarce resource that has become increasingly important for economic and agricultural development (Gleick, 1993). 2. Water Conflicts between India and Pakistan: Water conflicts over the distribution of Indus basin dates back to the 19th century but at that time these were intranational conflicts between the provinces of Indian sub-continent, which were supposed to be resolved by the British India. The British India was able to resolve the first major dispute in 1935 through arbitration by the ‗Anderson Commission‘. When the demand for irrigation water increased over the next few years, new water related dispute emerged which was resolved again in 1942 by the ‗Rao Commission‘. With the partition of united India, the Indus basin was also divided between India and Pakistan in 1947 (Barrett, 1994; Rehman and Kamal, 2005), what left the control of Pakistan‘s irrigation water in the hands of India, geographically. Therefore, water conflicts between the two nations started soon after independence in 1948, when India claimed sovereign rights over the waters passing through its territory and diverted these waters away from Pakistan. This illegitimate control of rivers threatened war when India refused Pakistan‘s proposal of neutral arbitration to settle down the conflict. Later on, the World Bank offered its neutral services to resolve the conflict and both India and Pakistan agreed. The proposal of joint use and development of the Indus basin as a single water resource was refused in 1952 over the concern of national sovereignty by both, what lead to the division of the Indus and its tributaries. According to this proposal, India was offered three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej), while Pakistan was offered three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab). India was also supposed to provide monetary funds to construct canals and storage dams to replace Pakistan‘s irrigation supplies from the eastern rivers to western rivers. However, India refused to pay for the construction of storage dams, which was then settled through external finance with the help of the World Bank. Since Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) signed In Sep 1960, many controversies have arisen over the design and construction of different projects on both sides of the basin, some of which have been resolved and others are yet to be resolved (Barrett, 1994). From December 2001 to June 2002, India was vocally considering pulling out of the treaty as one of the steps of hitting back at Pakistan for its alleged support of terrorist outfits targeting India (Pearce, 2002), and in turn Pakistan has stated that it would be prepared to use nuclear weapons over a water crisis (Wirsing and Jasparro, 2006). A senior Pakistani diplomat, among other regional experts, confirms, ―Water has become the core issue between India and Pakistan.‖ (Wirsing and Jasparro, 2006 and Sridhar, 2005). 3. Research Aims: The proposed research attempts to apply the Hydro-Hegemony Framework (HHF) to analyse the transboundary water conflicts between India and Pakistan since the Indus Water Treaty. The analysis will also focus on how discourses on both sides of the border highlight the issue. This research is thus structured around two main aims: I. To investigate the intensity of conflicts through the hydro-hegemony framework, between the two nuclear powers. II. To examine how India is practicing water hegemony in the region The findings of this research will inform the national and international policy makers, foreign/environmental ministries and especially the Indus waters commission on both sides of the border, about the importance of cooperation and the establishment of an international water law/treaty. 4. Research Questions: This study is framed upon the following two questions: I. How has the nature and intensity of water conflicts between India and Pakistan have evolved since Indus Water Treaty was signed especially after becoming nuclear powers? II. What form of hegemony is exercised by India? How India has been able to maintain its water hegemony? 5. Methodology: Case-study methodology is employed for the purpose of this research. By using a case-study, this research attempts to answer the original hypothesis predicting whether the nature and intensity of water conflicts between India and Pakistan have evolved since Indus Waters Treaty was signed especially after becoming nuclear powers. As a consequence, this paper is to evaluate the cogency of hydro-hegemony framework and the research question against the observed case-study. The proposed research will conducts the literature review on transboundary water conflicts in general and specifically water issues between the historical rivals Pakistan and India in the post IWT. The research itself will be an attempt to introduce the specific elements of water hegemony and power imbalances. The proposed research emphasizes the attention to the historical conflicts and rivalry between the two nations over the dispute of Kashmir and Indus Basin. Literature Review 1. Water Issue in General Context: Conflict over water has been a tendency of human behaviour throughout history though it does not tend to fit the traditional mold of full-scale wars fought purely over water. Particularly since the 20th century, water has been a significant feature of the various conflicts rather than their sole purpose (Gleick, 2006). However, now in the first decade of the 21st century, with the increasing pressures, especially from rapid population growth, urbanization and climate change, this century may in fact witness a birth of full-scale wars for fresh water (Gleick, 1993). Water conflicts extend back to thousands of years but this issue has been given more importance in recent years because of two major factors. Firstly, it is often mentioned in the media that the war of the next century will be fought over water for national sovereignty and security. Secondly the current water scarcity especially in the arid and semi-arid regions, due to the global climate change and fast growing population. Much of the attention and discussions are based on war threats over transboundary water conflicts while there is little debate about cooperation over international river basins. The reason these conflicts fall short of war may have much more to do with the imbalance of power between the riparians than with a perceived cooperation between them‖.

Load more