Water wars

When it comes to India and Pakistan, any discussion inherently involves conflict. The case is not so different on the waterfront.
The issue of the division and lawful usage of the flows was resolved by the Indus Water Treaty of 1961. However, as it stands today, the exceptionally detailed and fair treaty is under threat of violation.
The first issue that the two countries failed to resolve was the construction of the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab. As a result, the case was taken to a neutral expert for solution. To Pakistans dismay, the construction of the dam was approved, which would not have been the case if the treaty were truly followed.
For Pakistan, the approval of the Baglihar Dam has posed threat to its water flows for agriculture and development activities.
"The cumulative effect of these projects could give India the ability to store enough water to limit the supply to Pakistan at crucial moments in the growing season," says a report titled Avoiding water wars: water scarcity in Central Asias growing importance for stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan prepared for the use of the committee on foreign relations US Senate, 2011.
Further, the two nations are also facing conflict on the Krishanganga Project. If India goes ahead with it, Pakistans capacity to generate 1000MW electricity from the Neelam-Jehlum project will be adversely affected.
The treaty clearly states: "Where a plant is located on a tributary of the Jhelum on which Pakistan has any agricultural use or hydro-electric use, the water released below the plant may be delivered, if necessary, into another tributary, but only to the extent that the then existing agricultural use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on the former tributary would be adversely affected."
The massive increase in plans on the Jhelum and Chenab are putting an overwhelming stress on IWT mechanisms. After the approval of the Baglihar dam, physical protection of limiting live storage has been greatly reduced.
And if the Krishanganga project does not stop, Pakistan would have lost another case. On the other side of the border, the dependency and delays in decision-making due to cross-border issues is increasing uncertainties for investors. Continuing this will add fuel to the Jehadi fire.
With the undeniable tensions on both sides of the border, it is crucial for the concerned countries to save the IWT.
In a recent conference in LUMS, John Briscoe, a renowned professor at Harvard, highlighted the possible solutions. According to him, the division of property rights in the treaty is sound and should be maintained. However, there is a need to modernise the dispute resolution mechanism.
This can be done by the engagement of neutral dispute resolution expertise without the role of engineers. At the same time, it is essential for the two countries to cooperate and invest in projects that are jointly beneficial.
Tensions over trans-boundary waters are growing between countries, which raise the specter of water wars. It is time that leaders of the subcontinent follow Nelson Mandelas principle: "Acknowledge the past but do not become prisoners to it; move on and create a better future for all."