Why Ranbir Canal matters as India plans to choke water flow to Pak? Key details
In a strategic move to choke the flow of water from the Indus Basin to Pakistan, India is considering doubling the length of the Ranbir Canal on River Chenab from 60 km to 120 km. The move will not only increase India's ability to divert water to Jammu for agricultural activities, but also reduce the flow into downstream Pakistan. This will directly hit Pakistan's Punjab province, which contributes 68% to the annual food grain production.advertisementChenab is one of the three rivers whose waters were allocated to Pakistan under the now suspended Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The move will likely have profound implications for Pakistan's agricultural production.WHAT IS RANBIR CANAL?The Ranbir Canal, located in Jammu, is the lifeline for the city's agricultural production. Constructed in the early 20th century, it stretches nearly 60 km from its origin - upstream of the Akhnoor Bridge on the left bank of the Chenab, about 25 kilometres northeast of Jammu city.The canal was designed initially on net irrigated land of 16.460 hectares. The length of the main Ranbir Canal is 60 km and that of its distribution system is around 400 km.As per the Indus Water Treaty, 1960, the Ranbir Canal is allowed to carry 1,000 cusecs for irrigation purposes, 250 cusecs for hydropower use besides water withdrawal for silt extraction from April 15 to October 14.LOCATION AND STRUCTUREadvertisementOrigin: The canal takes off from River Chenab near Akhnoor, Jammu.Length: Originally about 60 kilometers, with current proposals to extend it up to 120 kilometres.Route: It traverses the Jammu region, providing water to agricultural lands and supporting local communities.BACKGROUND ON THE INDUS WATERS TREATYThe Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, is a water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank.It allocates the waters of the eastern rivers (Beas, Ravi, Sutlej) to India and the western rivers (Indus, Chenab, Jhelum) to Pakistan, while permitting India's limited use of the western rivers for irrigation and non-consumptive purposes.India has suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan for the first time ever in response to the deadly April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people, mostly tourists.The decision to halt the treaty was taken by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), the government's highest decision-making body on national security.WHY RANBIR CANAL MATTERS?The Ranbir Canal predates the IWT, having been built in the 19th century, and has long served as a key irrigation channel for the Jammu region.India's use of water from the Chenab (a western river) for irrigation via the Ranbir Canal has been regulated, with limits on how much water can be diverted to ensure downstream flows to Pakistan.advertisementFollowing the April 22 terror attack, India suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty. In the aftermath, India began considering measures to increase its control over the Indus system, including major expansions of existing infrastructure like the Ranbir Canal.PROPOSED EXPANSIONThe government is weighing plans to double the Ranbir Canal's length from 60 km to 120 km, increasing its reach and capacity.The expansion would boost the canal's diversion capacity from 40 cubic meters per second to 150 cubic meters per second, potentially diverting significantly more water for Indian use before it reaches Pakistan's Punjab region.This move is seen as a way for India to exert pressure on Pakistan, as about 80 per cent of Pakistan's agriculture relies on the Indus system. Any reduction in water flow could have serious consequences for Pakistani agriculture and hydropower.GEOPOLITICAL IMPLICATIONSThe expansion of the Ranbir Canal is part of a broader Indian strategy to leverage its upstream position for geopolitical influence, especially after the suspension of the treaty.While such infrastructure changes would take years to fully implement, the holding of water in certain dams has already affected water levels at key points in Pakistan.RANBIR CANAL FACTSFeatureDetailsLocationJammu, IndiaSourceChenab River (upstream of Akhnoor Bridge)Original Length60 kmProposed Length120 km (under expansion plans)Construction Completed1905PurposeIrrigation, water supplyTreaty ContextRegulated under Indus Waters Treaty; now under reviewStrategic SignificancePotential tool for water leverage post-treaty suspension
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
Operation Sindoor: Opposition playing into the hands of foreign lobbies
In a democracy the government will always be criticised by opposition voices even when its policies and actions are not wrong. How else will the opposition find political space for itself? When one talks of the opposition it includes social activists, journalists, political commentators and others who are also critical of the government for ideological, intellectual and other reasons. But such criticism should not be at the cost of larger national interest. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These broad opposition circles in India are creating controversies over the post-Pahalgam-Operation Sindoor against Pakistan which abets its propaganda and plays into the hands of anti-Indian lobbies abroad. The Congress is particularly vociferous in its attacks on the government. It has made an issue of the ceasefire that India has accepted. President Donald Trump has created the ground for this by announcing the ceasefire even before India and Pakistan could do so, giving the impression that India had succumbed to US pressure. The Congress and others are aware of Trump's penchant for loose and exaggerated talk and his obsession to be seen as a peacemaker. His inconsistent and contradictory commentary on the Ukraine conflict, sometimes showing an understanding of Russia's military action and at other times condemning it and threatening more sanctions, should give thought to those who would take him at his word. Why engage in distasteful rhetoric of the 'Narendra Surrender' kind? That the US intervened diplomatically with India and Pakistan to avoid an escalation of the conflict was to be expected given decades of US involvement in the subcontinent largely in favour of Pakistan, as well as concerns about the implications of nuclear-armed and increasingly radicalised Pakistan's military defeat. That could raise the possibility of an eventual breakup of Pakistan, as the army is seen as the glue that binds the country together. With the independence movement in Balochistan and the violent activities of the TTP from Afghan soil these concerns must have become sharper. The US has always backed a strategic balance in the subcontinent which requires a Pakistan capable of standing up to India, even if this is not the only reason for America's soft handling of that country. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Irrespective of the US role, would the Congress have wanted the military action to continue? To what end and at what cost? One can legitimately argue that a prolonged conflict was neither in India's plans nor seen as desirable. India had wanted to teach Pakistan a hard lesson, convey that it would no longer tolerate terrorism directed at India, and that it would not be deterred from taking condign action despite Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons. This is in addition to diplomatic steps, the most important being holding the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, which gives India a handle on Pakistan like none other. In fact, this step gives us a grip on the jugular vein of Pakistan. India had no reason to keep escalating the conflict unless compelled by Pakistan to do so. India cannot, however, ignore that Pakistan is an irrational country, irrational in its emergence based on religion and then losing half of its territory because religion was not a sufficient glue. The fact that a huge number of Pakistan's co-religionists remained part of India added to the irrationality of its creation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Pakistan's military adventures against India, as well as its recourse to terrorism as an instrument of state policy for decades against a much stronger neighbour have been part of its irrational behaviour. So is its desire to maintain military parity with India despite the precariousness of its economy. Pakistan talks loosely about its readiness to use the nuclear option and claims to have developed tactical nuclear weapons for that purpose, which too is irrational. Pakistan is not learning from Russia's case, which notwithstanding its formidable nuclear arsenal is unable to use its existence to prevent NATO from waging a proxy war against it. To top all this, Pakistan now has a military chief who is a rabid India-hating Islamist. After a military drubbing received from India he has convinced the country that Pakistan scored a victory over India, which supposedly justifies his self-elevation to the rank of a Field Marshal. In view of all this, India cannot dismiss off hand entirely the dangers of an uncontrolled spiral in military escalation. Our Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) in his public comments at the recent Shangri La Dialogue at Singapore has given credit to Pakistan that in the recent conflict there was no irresponsible nuclear signaling on its part. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD One can say that Pakistan had no need to do so as we had made it clear at the very start that our target was not the Pakistani military but the country's terrorist infrastructure. In other words, a readiness to de-escalate after the initial blows seemed a part of our overall strategy. One assumes that the CDS's intention was to de-dramatise the danger of the India-Pakistan conflict going nuclear, as well as to rebut Trump's exaggerated claim that he had helped to avert a nuclear showdown in the subcontinent by his intervention and thus prevented loss of millions of lives. India does not need a prolonged military conflict with Pakistan. India has already very substantially raised the level of dissuasion when it comes to Pakistan using the terror weapon against it. This is enough from our point of view for the time being. India's priority will remain its economic growth, developing its industrial manufacturing base, including in the defence sector, becoming part of global supply chains, investing in critical technologies, increasing its weight in the international system so that it can have more say in shaping the rules of global governance. India's ambitious agenda of Viksit Bharat by 2047 can be derailed by an all-out conflict with Pakistan. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD To say India has been hyphenated with Pakistan because of Trump equating them in his remarks and offering to mediate in resolving the Kashmir issue has no real basis. The major partners of India, including the EU, are not following his ill-considered comments. Trump is needlessly causing wrinkles in India-US ties. US relations with India are incomparably wider and deeper than those with Pakistan. India, a $4.2 trillion economy, has become the world's fourth largest economy this year, whereas Pakistan's $411 billion economy is surviving on IMF bailouts. The US trade with India stands at $200 billion whereas it is a mere $7.4 billion with Pakistan. India is part of the Quad and is a proponent in the Indo-Pacific concept aimed at deterring China whereas China is Pakistan's closest defence and economic partner. India is part of the G20, is an invitee to the G7 meetings because of its stature, has vast pools of human talent in technology areas which the US and the West seek to benefit from, and so on. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Undoubtedly, the international media and think tank narrative on the outcome of the India-Pakistan conflict has been tilted in Pakistan's favour. This is not new because on India-Pakistan issues the narrative has always been biased against India. This narrative was shaped during the Cold War when non-aligned India was perceived to be pro-Soviet Union and Pakistan was an ally. India broke up Pakistan in 1971 against US wishes. Ties at the military level between the US and Pakistan have been nurtured over the years and remain close under the aegis of US Central Command. The US media and that of Europe by and large reflects ingrained prejudices and what the Deep State in these countries wants to be propagated. This media/think tank narrative has been more interested in how many Indian aircraft Pakistan shot down to highlight Pakistan's success, the inferior performance of French Rafales and the superior one of Chinese platforms. To argue that India should have been transparent about its losses in the interest of credibility is playing the game of pro-Pakistan lobbies. Look at the way the western governments and lobbies are projecting the political and military aspects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, without any concerns about transparency and credibility. It has never announced the losses of its equipment to Russia in the Ukraine conflict. The manner in which the blowing up of Nord Stream 2 has been treated is another glaring example. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Our own opposition parties are wrong in asking the government to reveal our losses in the recent conflict and are, wittingly or unwittingly, playing into the hands of these foreign lobbies. Kanwal Sibal is a former Indian Foreign Secretary. He was India's Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
Operation Sindoor: India's Opposition Should Not Undermine Government
Last Updated: India's opposition parties are wrong in asking the government to reveal the losses in the recent conflict with Pakistan and are playing into the hands of foreign lobbies. In a democracy the government will always be criticised by opposition voices even when its policies and actions are not wrong. How else will the opposition find political space for itself? When one talks of the opposition, it includes social activists, journalists, political commentators and others who are also critical of the government for ideological, intellectual and other reasons. But such criticism should not be at the cost of larger national interest. These broad opposition circles in India are creating controversies over the post-Pahalgam-Operation Sindoor against Pakistan which abets its propaganda and plays into the hands of anti-Indian lobbies abroad. The Congress is particularly vociferous in its attacks on the government. It has made an issue of the ceasefire that India has accepted. President Donald Trump has created the ground for this by announcing the ceasefire even before India and Pakistan could do so, giving the impression that India had succumbed to US pressure. The Congress and others are aware of Trump's penchant for loose and exaggerated talk and his obsession to be seen as a peacemaker. His inconsistent and contradictory commentary on the Ukraine conflict, sometimes showing an understanding of Russia's military action and at other times condemning it and threatening more sanctions, should give thought to those who would take him at his word. Why engage in distasteful rhetoric of the 'Narendra Surrender" kind? That the US intervened diplomatically with India and Pakistan to avoid an escalation of the conflict was to be expected given decades of US involvement in the subcontinent largely in favour of Pakistan, as well as concerns about the implications of nuclear-armed and increasingly radicalised Pakistan's military defeat. That could raise the possibility of an eventual breakup of Pakistan, as the army is seen as the glue that binds the country together. With the independence movement in Balochistan and the violent activities of the TTP from Afghan soil these concerns must have become sharper. The US has always backed a strategic balance in the subcontinent which requires a Pakistan capable of standing up to India, even if this is not the only reason for America's soft handling of that country. Irrespective of the US role, would the Congress have wanted the military action to continue? To what end and at what cost? One can legitimately argue that a prolonged conflict was neither in India's plans nor seen as desirable. India had wanted to teach Pakistan a hard lesson, convey that it would no longer tolerate terrorism directed at India, and that it would not be deterred from taking condign action despite Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons. This is in addition to diplomatic steps, the most important being holding the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, which gives India a handle on Pakistan like none other. In fact, this step gives us a grip on the jugular vein of Pakistan. India had no reason to keep escalating the conflict unless compelled by Pakistan to do so. India cannot, however, ignore that Pakistan is an irrational country, irrational in its emergence based on religion and then losing half of its territory because religion was not a sufficient glue. The fact that a huge number of Pakistan's co-religionists remained part of India added to the irrationality of its creation. Pakistan's military adventures against India, as well as its recourse to terrorism as an instrument of state policy for decades against a much stronger neighbour have been part of its irrational behaviour. So is its desire to maintain military parity with India despite the precariousness of its economy. Pakistan talks loosely about its readiness to use the nuclear option and claims to have developed tactical nuclear weapons for that purpose, which too is irrational. Pakistan is not learning from Russia's case, which notwithstanding its formidable nuclear arsenal is unable to use its existence to prevent NATO from waging a proxy war against it. To top all this, Pakistan now has a military chief who is a rabid India-hating Islamist. After a military drubbing received from India he has convinced the country that Pakistan scored a victory over India, which supposedly justifies his self-elevation to the rank of a Field Marshal. In view of all this, India cannot dismiss off hand entirely the dangers of an uncontrolled spiral in military escalation. Our Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) in his public comments at the recent Shangri La Dialogue at Singapore has given credit to Pakistan that in the recent conflict there was no irresponsible nuclear signaling on its part. One can say that Pakistan had no need to do so as we had made it clear at the very start that our target was not the Pakistani military but the country's terrorist infrastructure. In other words, a readiness to de-escalate after the initial blows seemed a part of our overall strategy. One assumes that the CDS's intention was to de-dramatise the danger of the India-Pakistan conflict going nuclear, as well as to rebut Trump's exaggerated claim that he had helped to avert a nuclear showdown in the subcontinent by his intervention and thus prevented loss of millions of lives. India does not need a prolonged military conflict with Pakistan. India has already very substantially raised the level of dissuasion when it comes to Pakistan using the terror weapon against it. This is enough from our point of view for the time being. India's priority will remain its economic growth, developing its industrial manufacturing base, including in the defence sector, becoming part of global supply chains, investing in critical technologies, increasing its weight in the international system so that it can have more say in shaping the rules of global governance. India's ambitious agenda of Viksit Bharat by 2047 can be derailed by an all-out conflict with Pakistan. To say India has been hyphenated with Pakistan because of Trump equating them in his remarks and offering to mediate in resolving the Kashmir issue has no real basis. The major partners of India, including the EU, are not following his ill-considered comments. Trump is needlessly causing wrinkles in India-US ties. US relations with India are incomparably wider and deeper than those with Pakistan. India, a $4.2 trillion economy, has become the world's fourth largest economy this year, whereas Pakistan's $411 billion economy is surviving on IMF bailouts. The US trade with India stands at $200 billion whereas it is a mere $7.4 billion with Pakistan. India is part of the Quad and is a proponent in the Indo-Pacific concept aimed at deterring China whereas China is Pakistan's closest defence and economic partner. India is part of the G20, is an invitee to the G7 meetings because of its stature, has vast pools of human talent in technology areas which the US and the West seek to benefit from, and so on. Undoubtedly, the international media and think tank narrative on the outcome of the India-Pakistan conflict has been tilted in Pakistan's favour. This is not new because on India-Pakistan issues the narrative has always been biased against India. This narrative was shaped during the Cold War when non-aligned India was perceived to be pro-Soviet Union and Pakistan was an ally. India broke up Pakistan in 1971 against US wishes. Ties at the military level between the US and Pakistan have been nurtured over the years and remain close under the aegis of US Central Command. The US media and that of Europe by and large reflects ingrained prejudices and what the Deep State in these countries wants to be propagated. This media/think tank narrative has been more interested in how many Indian aircraft Pakistan shot down to highlight Pakistan's success, the inferior performance of French Rafales and the superior one of Chinese platforms. To argue that India should have been transparent about its losses in the interest of credibility is playing the game of pro-Pakistan lobbies. Look at the way the western governments and lobbies are projecting the political and military aspects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, without any concerns about transparency and credibility. It has never announced the losses of its equipment to Russia in the Ukraine conflict. The manner in which the blowing up of Nord Stream 2 has been treated is another glaring example. top videos View all Our own opposition parties are wrong in asking the government to reveal our losses in the recent conflict and are, wittingly or unwittingly, playing into the hands of these foreign lobbies. Kanwal Sibal is a former Indian Foreign Secretary. He was India's Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : Operation Sindoor Pahalgam attack Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 10, 2025, 16:59 IST News opinion Opinion | Operation Sindoor: India's Opposition Should Not Undermine Government
Hans India
5 hours ago
- Hans India
Pakistan Army Chief Declares Opposition To Indian Regional Dominance, Calls Water Treaty Sacred
Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan's Army Chief, has made strong declarations regarding his country's stance toward India's regional influence, emphasizing that Pakistan will steadfastly resist any attempts at Indian dominance in South Asia. Speaking to university officials and educators, Munir outlined Pakistan's unwavering position on critical bilateral issues. The military leader characterized the Indus Water Treaty as an inviolable boundary that Pakistan will defend at all costs. Following India's decision to suspend the decades-old water-sharing agreement, Munir emphasized that water rights represent a fundamental necessity for Pakistan's 240 million citizens and cannot be compromised under any circumstances. The suspension of the Indus Water Treaty came after Pakistan-backed militants killed 26 tourists in Kashmir's Pahalgam region. India's Cabinet Committee on Security, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership, took the unprecedented step of halting the 1960 agreement for the first time in its history. The treaty governs the distribution and management of six major rivers: Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej between the two nations. In response to India's action, New Delhi deployed seven diplomatic teams globally as part of post-Operation Sindoor outreach efforts to explain and justify its position on the treaty suspension. These teams, consisting of parliamentarians from various political parties, worked to communicate India's rationale to the international community. Regarding the ongoing insurgency in Balochistan, Munir attributed the unrest to external interference, specifically pointing to Indian involvement. He claimed that the militant elements operating in the province serve as proxies for foreign powers, particularly India, and disputed their authentic Baloch identity. The Balochistan region has witnessed intensified rebel activities, including multiple attacks on Pakistani security forces in the provincial capital Quetta, with insurgents even replacing Pakistani flags with their own symbols. The Army Chief's remarks came weeks after a significant military confrontation between the two countries that resulted in a ceasefire agreement. The conflict began when India conducted Operation Sindoor in early May, launching targeted strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan responded with attempted strikes on Indian military installations over several days, prompting a strong Indian counterresponse before both nations agreed to cease hostilities on May 10. Munir made a notable comment about divine intervention, suggesting that Pakistan received heavenly assistance during the recent military engagement with India. This statement reflects the religious undertones often present in Pakistani military and political discourse regarding conflicts with India. The Pakistani military's media wing, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), disseminated Munir's statements, ensuring wide coverage of his position on these critical regional issues. The Army Chief's firm stance reflects Pakistan's broader strategic concerns about maintaining sovereignty and territorial integrity while managing complex relationships with neighboring countries. These developments highlight the continuing tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, particularly around water rights, territorial disputes, and allegations of cross-border terrorism and insurgency support. The suspension of the Indus Water Treaty represents a significant escalation in bilateral relations, affecting millions of people dependent on these water resources for agriculture and daily life.
