THE statement by India’s Minister of Water Resources, C.R. Patil that “not a single drop of water will be allowed to flow to Pakistan” has caused concern across South Asia. When states begin using water as a tool of political pressure or diplomatic leverage, the consequences are felt far beyond national borders. Rivers do not recognize political boundaries, nor does water flow according to religion, ethnicity or nationality. Rivers are natural waterways and when their flow has continued for centuries or even millennia under a natural system, they are regarded as international rivers or shared water resources. International law recognizes that the rights and interests of both upstream and downstream countries must be protected.
Rivers are not the property of any single country; nature created them without borders. International principles also state that all relevant parties have the right to benefit from a river’s flow. If a country starts using its geographical advantage to weaponize water, disputes could emerge over many of the world’s international rivers. In Pakistan’s case, not only legal rights but also humanitarian concerns are involved. The Indus River system forms the foundation of Pakistan’s agriculture, food security and economy. Therefore, the water issue should not be viewed solely through a political or strategic lens but also in the context of human survival. If upstream states adopt the principle of denying water to downstream countries, how can the future of nations living along international rivers remain secure?
Experts in water management and international relations often classify such statements as forms of water aggression or water pressure. In the context of Pakistan and India, some would even regard them as a form of “water terrorism,” given the already tense relations between the two countries. India has at times restricted water flows to Pakistan and at other times released water without prior notice, both of which can cause significant difficulties for Pakistan. When a state openly engages in such actions, critics argue that it contradicts the spirit of international water law.
India has previously diverted water through tunnels and has influenced river flows through dams, hydropower projects and other water infrastructure. Pakistan has raised objections on several occasions to projects such as the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project, the Baglihar Dam and the Ratle Hydroelectric Project, taking some disputes to arbitration and international forums. India has remained firm in its position. Pakistan has repeatedly challenged various Indian projects, alleging that India is attempting to gain unilateral control over a shared water system, which could increase tensions in the region.
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed between Pakistan and India in 1960, is widely regarded as a successful international agreement. Under this treaty, a clear framework exists for the distribution of river waters. If attempts are made to undermine it, the dispute may cease to be merely a water issue and could become a broader matter of peace and security. If violations of international agreements carry no accountability, what value do such agreements retain? And if respect for treaties disappears, would the global order not become increasingly unstable?
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Faisalabad.
