Skip to main content

Abrogating Indus Valley Treaty? It would invite major floods in Kashmir and Jammu region, claims top expert

By Our Representative
Amidst Government of India floating the view that it may abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan, the view is getting strong, especially among knowledgeable circles, that any move in that direction would not just hit India adversely internationally, but it will also have major environmental consequences in the entire Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).
Signed 55 years ago, in 1960, and considered worldwide the most successful treaty between two countries, influential circles believe, it is particularly “not advisable” for India not to scrap the treaty, which is aspiring to become a permanent member of the United National Security Council.
The treaty “divides” six rivers, with three of them on the eastern front being “given” to India, and three others on the western side three rivers remaining “exclusively” with Pakistan. Considered “a win-win situation” for both, the treaty has not been questioned even during the worst of times with Pakistan – the 1965 and 1971 wars, or the Kargil imbroglio.
Worse, Dr Shakil Ahmad Romshoo, head of the earth sciences, geology and geophysics departments, University of Kashmir, in a recent interview, says that “people who talk about scrapping this treaty have no technical understanding.”
“There are so many trans-boundary rivers in the world and countries have to find a mechanism to share water. All over the world the Indus Waters Treaty is referred as our most successful treaty”, says Romshoo, adding, “At this moment we are sharing water with Bangladesh and Nepal too. If we scrap this treaty we will scare these countries as well.”
Vikas Swarup, the ministry of external affairs spokesperson, first hinted at the possibility of scrapping the treaty to teach Pakistan a lesson a few days back, while talking of “differences between India and Pakistan on the implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty,", insisting, “Eventually any cooperative arrangement requires goodwill and mutual trust on both sides."
Technically, says Romshoo, it is not possible to abrogate the treaty, pointing out, “Even if you put infrastructure to do so, it will take you 10 to 15 years to build canals to divert the water. J&K is a mountainous state and you will have to build canals to take the water out of the state.”
The rivers on the the eastern front are Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, for which rights have been given exclusively to India in the treaty. On the western front are Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, whose rights are with Pakistan, though some of their waters are used in J&K for the purpose of hydropower generation, for domestic use and for agriculture, while the rest of it being released to Pakistan.
Romshoo says, as of today, India does not have any infrastructure to store this water. “We have not build dams in J&K where we can store the water. And being a mountainous state, unlike Tamil Nadu or Karnataka, you cannot move water to another state. So you cannot stop water technically”, he adds.
In case India stops the river waters from entering Pakistan, says Romshoo, “the Kashmir valley will flood as will Jammu. You just don't have the storage capacity.” He adds, “In Kashmir you do not need too much water for irrigation purposes. If you look at the Indus Waters Treaty, India is entitled to store water, but has failed to develop that infrastructure in J&K.”

Comments

yatin said…
The headline is misleading. Walking out of the treaty allows India to use the water as it sees fit, and let however much (or little) that is left run into Pakistan. The only reason the IWT 'works' is that India is 100% the giver and Pakistan is 100% the receiver. Pakistan has no reason to walk out on a really good deal. If the roles were reversed, there would be no treaty. The first (and legal thing) India can do is begin building dams on the 3 rivers it is allowed to work on. It is silly that India has not done this yet.

TRENDING

Girl child education: 20 major states 'score' better than Gujarat, says GoI report

By Rajiv Shah
A Government of India report, released last month, has suggested that “model” Gujarat has failed to make any progress vis-à-vis other states in ensuring that girls continue to remain enrolled after they leave primary schools. The report finds that, in the age group 14-17, Gujarat’s 71% girls are enrolled at the secondary and higher secondary level, which is worse than 20 out of 22 major states for which data have been made available.

Congress 'promises' cancellation of Adani power project: Jharkhand elections

Counterview Desk
Pointing out that people's issues take a backseat in Jharkhand's 2019 assembly elections, the state's civil rights organization, the Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, a coalition of activists and people’s organisations, has said that political parties have largely ignored in their electoral manifestos the need to implement the fifth schedule of the Constitution in a predominantly tribal district.

Gujarat refusal to observe Maulana Azad's birthday as Education Day 'discriminatory'

By Our Representative
The Gujarat government decision not to celebrate the National Education Day on !monday has gone controversial. Civil society organizations have particularly wondered whether the state government is shying away from the occasion, especially against the backdrop of "deteriorating" level of education in Gujarat.

Hindutva founders 'borrowed' Nazi, fascist idea of one flag, one leader, one ideology

By Shamsul Islam*
With the unleashing of the reign of terror by the RSS/BJP rulers against working-class, peasant organizations, women organizations, student movements, intellectuals, writers, poets and progressive social/political activists, India also witnessed a series of resistance programmes organized by the pro-people cultural organizations in different parts of the country. My address in some of these programmes is reproduced here... 
***  Before sharing my views on the tasks of artists-writers-intellectuals in the times of fascism, let me briefly define fascism and how it is different from totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is political concept, a dictatorship of an individual, family or group which prohibits opposition in any form, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is also described as authoritarianism.
Whereas fascism, while retaining all these repressive characteristics, also believes in god-ordained superiority of race, cultur…

Ex-World Bank chief economist doubts spurt in India's ease of doing business rank

By Rajiv Shah
This is in continuation of my previous blog where I had quoted from a commentary which top economist Prof Kaushik Basu had written in the New York Times (NYT) a little less than a month ago, on November 6, to be exact. He recalled this article through a tweet on November 29, soon after it was made known that India's growth rate had slumped (officially!) to 4.5%.

With RSS around, does India need foreign enemy to undo its democratic-secular fabric?

By Shamsul Islam*
Many well-meaning liberal and secular political analysts are highly perturbed by sectarian policy decisions of RSS/BJP rulers led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, especially after starting his second inning. They are vocal in red-flagging lynching incidents, policies of the Modi government on Kashmir, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the demand for 'Bharat Ratna' to Savarkar who submitted 6-7 mercy petitions to the British masters (getting remission of 40 years out of 50 years' sentence), and the murder of constitutional norms in Goa, Karnataka and now in Maharashtra.

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Post-Balakot, danger that events might spiral out of control is 'greater, not less'

By Tapan Bose*
The fear of war in South Asia is increasing. Tensions are escalating between India and Pakistan after the Indian defence minister's announcement in August this year that India may revoke its current commitment to only use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack, known as ‘no first use’. According to some experts who are watching the situation the risk of a conflict between the two countries has never been greater since they both tested nuclear weapons in 1998.

Worrying signs in BJP: Modi, Shah begin 'cold-shouldering' Gujarat CM, party chief

By RK Misra*
The political developments in neighbouring Maharashtra where a Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress government assumed office has had a trickle down effect in Gujarat with both the ruling BJP and the Congress opposition going into revamp mode.

'Favouring' tribals and ignoring Adivasis? Behind coercion of India's aborigines

By Mohan Guruswamy*
Tribal people account for 8.2% of India’s population. They are spread over all of India’s States and Union Territories. Even so they can be broadly classified into three groupings. The first grouping consists of populations who predate the Indo-Aryan migrations. These are termed by many anthropologists as the Austro-Asiatic-speaking Australoid people.