India weighs plan to slash Pakistan water supply with new Indus river project
FILE PHOTO: Fishermen clear a fishing net in the water on the partially dried up riverbed of the Indus River in Hyderabad, Pakistan April 25, 2025. REUTERS/Yasir Rajput/File Photo
NEW DELHI/ISLAMABAD - India is considering plans to dramatically increase the water it draws from a major river that feeds Pakistani farms downstream, as part of retaliatory action for a deadly April attack on tourists that New Delhi blames on Islamabad, according to four people familiar with the matter.
Delhi suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, which governs usage of the Indus river system, shortly after 26 civilians in Indian Kashmir were killed in what India called an act of terror. Pakistan has denied involvement in the incident, but the accord has not been revived despite the two nuclear-armed neighbours agreeing a ceasefire last week following the worst fighting between them in decades.
After the April 22 attack, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi ordered officials to expedite planning and execution of projects on the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus rivers, three bodies of water in the Indus system that are designated primarily for Pakistan's use, six people told Reuters.
One of the key plans under discussion involves doubling to 120km the length of the Ranbir canal on the Chenab, which runs through India to Pakistan's agricultural powerhouse of Punjab, two of the people said. The canal was built in the 19th century, long before the treaty was signed.
India is permitted to draw a limited amount of water from the Chenab for irrigation, but an expanded canal - which experts said could take years to construct - would allow it to divert 150 cubic meters of water per second, up from about 40 cubic meters currently, the four people said, citing official discussions and documents they had seen.
Details of the Indian government's deliberations on expanding Ranbir have not previously been reported. The discussions started last month and continue even after the ceasefire, one of the people said.
The Indian ministries responsible for water and foreign affairs, as well as Modi's office, did not respond to Reuters' questions. Indian hydropower giant NHPC, which operates many projects in the Indus system, also did not respond to an email seeking comment.
Modi said in a fiery speech this week that "water and blood cannot flow together," though he didn't refer to the treaty. Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters Tuesday that India "will keep the treaty in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism".
The water and foreign ministries of Pakistan did not respond to requests for comment. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar told lawmakers this week that the government had written to India arguing that suspending the treaty was unlawful and that Islamabad regarded it as remaining in force.
Islamabad said after India suspended the treaty in April that it considered "any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan" to be an "act of war."
About 80% of Pakistani farms depend on the Indus system, as do nearly all hydropower projects serving the country of some 250 million.
Any efforts by Delhi to build dams, canals or other infrastructure that would withhold or divert significant amount of flow from the Indus system to India "would take years to realize," said water security expert David Michel of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
But Pakistan has had a preview of the kind of pressure it could face from India: Water at a key receiving point in Pakistan briefly fell by as much as 90% in early May after India started maintenance work on some Indus projects.
SUCCESS THREATENED
The Indus system runs through some of the world's most geopolitically tense areas, originating near Lake Mansarovar in Tibet and snaking through India's north and Pakistan's east and southeast, before emptying into the Arabian Sea.
The treaty is widely seen as one of the world's most successful water-sharing accords, having survived several major wars and longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan.
Islamabad has previously opposed many Indian projects in the Indus system, while Delhi said after the Kashmir attack that it had been trying to renegotiate the treaty since 2023 to account for population increases and its rising need for clean hydroenergy.
The treaty restricts India largely to setting up low-impact hydropower projects on the three rivers allocated to Pakistan. Delhi has freedom to utilize the waters of three other rivers - the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi tributaries - as it sees fit.
Alongside the plans to expand Ranbir canal, India is also considering projects that would likely reduce the flow of water into Pakistan from rivers allocated to that country, according to two government documents seen by Reuters and interviews with five people familiar with the matter.
One document, an undated note prepared by a government company for officials considering irrigation plans, suggests that water from the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum "potentially be distributed into rivers" in three northern Indian states.
One of the people said the document, the details of which haven't been previously reported, was created for discussions with power ministry officials after the April 22 attack.
Delhi has also created a list of hydropower projects in its Jammu and Kashmir territory that it hopes will expand capacity to 12,000 megawatts, up from the current 3,360 MW.
The list, which was created by the power ministry and seen by Reuters, was not dated. A person familiar with the document said it was created before the Kashmir incident but is actively being discussed by government officials.
The prospective projects also include dams that can store large volumes of water, in what would be a first for India in the Indus river system, according to two people familiar with the matter.
India has identified at least five possible storage projects, four of which are on tributaries of the Chenab and Jhelum, according to the power ministry document.
POLITICAL WRANGLING
The Himalayan region of Kashmir is claimed by both India and Pakistan, though each controls only parts of the area.
The region has been ravaged by an anti-India insurgency for decades, which Delhi has accused Islamabad of fuelling and funding. Pakistan denies the charges.
International relations expert Happymon Jacob at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University said that India's new focus on the Indus Waters Treaty reflected an attempt to pressure Pakistan over Kashmir.
"With the latest conflict, Delhi may refuse to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan in any format," he said. "Delhi has not only progressively narrowed the scope of bilateral talks but has also curtailed the agenda, focusing only on specific issues like the IWT."
Pakistan has said that it is preparing legal action in several international forums, including the World Bank, which facilitated the treaty, as well as the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
"Water should not be weaponised," Pakistan's Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb told Reuters on Monday. "We don't even want to consider any scenario which ... does not take into account the reinstatement of this treaty."
Michel, the U.S.-based expert, said that concern over the treaty's suspension was not limited to Islamabad.
"As geopolitical competition across the region deepens, more than a few Indian observers fear that Delhi's use of water against Islamabad risks licensing Beijing to adopt the same strategy against India," he said. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Russia's new drone strikes hit Kyiv, maternity ward in Odesa, Ukraine says
KYIV - Russia launched another large drone attack on Ukraine, striking Kyiv and damaging a maternity ward in the southern port of Odesa, regional officials said early on Tuesday. The overnight attacks follow Russia's biggest drone strike on Ukraine on Monday - part of intensified operations that Moscow said were retaliatory measures for Kyiv's recent brazen attacks inside Russia. Medics were called to four districts of Kyiv a couple hours after midnight on Tuesday, including the historic Podil neighbourhood, Mayor Vitali Klitschko said on the Telegram messaging app. The military said the strikes were still ongoing and urged people to seek bomb shelters. The full scale of the attack was not immediately clear. "Enemy drones are simultaneously attacking several districts of the city," Timur Tkachenko, head of Kyiv's military administration said on the Telegram messaging app. "There is damage to residential buildings and fires. Rescuers are working at the sites." Reuters' witnesses heard a series of loud explosions throughout the city. In the southern port of Odesa, a "massive" drone attack targeted an emergency medical building and a maternity ward, as well as residential buildings, Oleh Kiper, governor of the broader Odesa region said on Telegram. Regarding the maternity hospital there were no casualties and patients and staff were evacuated, Kiper said. He posted photos of broken windows in what looked like a medical facility and of damages to facades of several buildings. Both sides deny targeting civilians in the war that Russia launched against Ukraine more than three years ago. But thousands of civilians have been killed in the conflict, the chief majority of them Ukrainian. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County. PHOTO: REUTERS Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests? President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the US government. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 9 mobilised 700 active duty Marines as part of the government's response to the protests. California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom's command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the deployment? Mr Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the US is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. What are national guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What does California's lawsuit say? California National Guard troops and police officers stand guard as people attend a rally against federal immigration sweeps in Los Angeles on June 9. PHOTO: REUTERS California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion', no 'invasion' and no situation that prevented the enforcement of US laws in the state. Mr Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard 'shall be issued through the governors of the States', according to the lawsuit. What is the lawsuit asking for? The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Mr Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced. How might a court view the dispute? There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only ever been invoked once before to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organisations cast doubt on Mr Trump's use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Governor Newsom's support. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Governor Newsom's interpretation of the governor's role under Section 12406. Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word 'shall' in interpreting other laws, which supports Governor Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. What other laws could Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other US military troops? Mr Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Senior White House officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term 'insurrection' when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the US in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Protesters clash with law enforcement in the streets surrounding the federal building in Los Angeles on June 8. PHOTO: AFP The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat black motorist Rodney King. But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What about the Marines? Mr Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. But unless Mr Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in 'any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity'. The Defence Department said on June 9 that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
The White House wants 90 trade deals in 90 days, may have 1 so far
US President Donald Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pack with Britain, which is not one of America's biggest trading partners. PHOTO: REUTERS The White House wants 90 trade deals in 90 days, may have 1 so far WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump has announced wave after wave of tariffs since taking office in January, part of a sweeping effort that he has argued would secure better trade terms with other countries. 'It's called negotiation,' he recently said. In April, administration officials vowed to sign trade deals with as many as 90 countries in 90 days. The ambitious target came after Mr Trump announced, and then rolled back a portion of, steep tariffs that in some cases meant import taxes cost more than the wholesale price of a good itself. The 90-day goal, however, is one-tenth of the time it usually takes to reach a trade deal, according to a New York Times analysis of major agreements with the United States currently in effect, raising questions about how realistic the administration's target may be. It typically takes 917 days, or roughly two and a half years, for a trade deal to go from initial talks to the president's desk for signature, the analysis shows. Roughly 60 days into the current process, Mr Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pact with Britain, which is not one of America's biggest trading partners. He has also suggested that negotiations with China have been rocky. 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 4. China and the United States agreed last month to temporarily slash tariffs on each other's imports in a gesture of goodwill to continue talks. Part of what the president can accomplish boils down to what you can call a deal. The pact with Britain is less of a deal than it is a framework for talking about a deal, said Ms Wendy Cutler, the vice-president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former US trade negotiator. What was officially released by the two nations more closely resembled talking points for 'what you were going to negotiate versus the actual commitment', she said. During his first term, Mr Trump secured two major trade agreements, both signed in January 2020. One was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) which was a reworking of the North American free trade treaty from the 1990s that had helped transform the economies of the three nations. USMCA is an all-encompassing, legally binding agreement that resulted from a lengthy and formal process, according to trade analysts. Such deals are supposed to cover all aspects of trade between the respective nations and are negotiated under specific guidelines for congressional consultation. Closing the deal involves both negotiation and ratification – modifying or making laws in each partner country. The deals are signed by trade negotiators before the president signs the legislation that puts the deals into effect for the United States. Mr Trump's other major agreement in his first term was with China, in an echo of the current trade war. The pact, unlike previous deals, came about after Mr Trump threatened tariffs on certain Chinese imports. This 'tariff first, talk later' approach, said Ms Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is part of the same playbook the administration is currently using. The result was a nonbinding agreement between the two countries, known as 'Phase One,' that did not require approval from Congress and that could be ended by either party at any time. Still, it took almost one year and nine months to complete. China ultimately fell far short of the commitments it made to purchase American goods under the agreement. A comparison of the two first-term Trump deals shows the drawn-out and sometimes winding path each took to completion. Fragile truces (including ones made for 90 days) were formed, only for talks to break down later, all while rounds of tariffs injected uncertainty into the diplomatic relations between countries. The Times analysis used the date from the start of negotiations to the date when the president signed to determine the length of deal making for each major agreement dating back to 1985 that's currently in effect. The median time it took to get to the president's signature was just over 900 days. A separate analysis published in 2016 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics used the date of signature by country representatives as the completion moment and found that the median deal took more than 570 days. With roughly one month before the administration's self-imposed deadline, Mr Trump's ability to forge deals has been thrust into sudden doubt. Last week, a US trade court ruled he had overstepped his authority in imposing the April tariffs. For now, the tariffs remain in place, following a temporary stay from a federal appeals court. But in arguing its case, the federal government initially said that the ruling could upset negotiations with other nations and undercut the president's leverage. 'I think when the administration first started, they thought they could actually do these binding and enforceable deals within 90 days and then quickly realised that they bit off more than they could chew,' Ms Cutler said. The administration told its negotiating partners to submit offers of trade concessions they were willing to make by June 4, in an effort to strike trade deals in the coming weeks. The deadline was earlier reported by Reuters. The current approach to deal making may be strategic, Ms Manak said. One of the benefits of not doing a comprehensive deal like USMCA is that the administration can declare small 'victories' on a much faster timeline, she said. 'It means that trade agreements simply are just not what they used to be,' she added. 'And you can't really guarantee that whatever the US promises is actually going to be upheld in the long run.' NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.