India-Pakistan do not need ‘water jihad’

On Feb 19, the Court of Arbitration declared an interim Award on the fate of the Kishanganga/Neelum project on river Jhelum. This award was hailed by the Indian media, which made the point that this was India’s second consecutive victory

Following the remark made by former Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros-Boutros Ghalia,that water will be the reason for a third world war, many scholars and officials began chanting this mantra.

While it may be correct to say that water will become a serious source of conflict between the co-riparian, it is far-fetched to state with certainty that it will lead to wars. Certainly the nature and degree of conflict will depend upon changing political relationships between the co-riparians. However if cordial relations between the parties are the case it is likely that water related differences and conflicts will be resolved through compromise and mutually accepted adjustments. If bitter political relations prevail between the parties then the degree of conflict over water is likely to be more intense. In any case the possibility of war is not high.

While cooperation among the co-riparians is always possible, there is a lack of willingness to cooperate. The reasons for non-cooperation are the decreasing physical availability of water resources and bitter political relationships between the riparians. In the 2006 Human Development Report: Beyond scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis, four reasons were mentioned for the growing conflict among the riparains. They are Competing claims and perceived National Sovereignty Imperatives; Weak Political Leadership; Asymmetries of Power and Nonparticipation in basin initiatives.

Regarding recent developments on water-sharing between India-Pakistan, on February 19^th, 2013, the Court of Arbitration (CoA) declared an interim Award on the fate of the Kishanganga/Neelum project on river Jhelum.

This award was hailed by the Indian media, which made the point that this was India’s second consecutive victory over its arch-rival on water-related disputes. The first was in 2007 over the issue of the Baglihar multi-purpose project on the river Chenab. Pakistan challenged both these projects claiming that according to the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960, water from these two rivers must be utilized by Pakistan. India has only limited rights over them. These are not the only occasions when India and Pakistan have been at loggerheads over water issues. There have been moments in the past when both state and non-state actors from both countries boisterously raised their voices against the continuation of the treaty or to stop the flow of rivers into Pakistan. Thankfully up until now the issues have been well managed by the people at the helm of affairs, especially in India.

The root cause of the water conflicts is bitter political relations between India and Pakistan. The Indus Water Treaty of 1960 is one of two treaties that have been maintained in letter and spirit by both countries. The reasons for this are that first of all the treaty was mediated by the World Bank. Even if Pakistan had been the upper riparian, it was forced to adhere to the treaty because of the fact that weaker countries in the international system do not have the right to violate the set rules. If they violate the rules set down they will be punished by the international community. Various examples of this can be cited. Secondly, up until now both India and Pakistan have been able to fulfill their demands for water giving neither country sound reasons to violate the treaty. But a geometric rise in the populations has increased the demand for water and allied products, resulting in immense pressure on available resources. The gap between supply and demand will   grow in coming days as will conflict over water sharing from the Indus River Systems (IRS).

Once tensions over water become public, people from both sides will start to justify their positions, positioning themselves against the “other.”

In an attempt to be honest to my discipline and to avoid any sort of trap, I argue that in order to avoid a future crisis there is an utmost need to consider the entire IRS as a single unit. This was even proposed by David Linlithel, whose visit to the region led to mediation by the World Bank and the successful negotiation of the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan. Given the immaturity often demonstrated by Indian and Pakistan, to outdo the partition of IRS is a difficult task. Pragmatically however it is the only effective way to address the growing water problem in the catchment areas of the IRS. This is possible only if the two countries are determined to improve their bilateral political relations. If and when this occurs conflicts over water can be jointly managed. Otherwise one country will celebrate its pyrrhic victory and the other will keep on training its innocent youth for ‘water jihad’. In this entire process the losers will be the people from the both sides of the border all of whom are highly dependent upon water from the tributaries of the IRS.

To conclude, if judiciously used and objectively thought through, water bodies can act as a source for peace and cooperation between India and Pakistan. If not then the two immature modern nation-states may go to war or create at the very least a military stand-off over this issue for the reason that they like to fight no matter what the issue and consequences.