Modi jeopardizing lives of 1.7bn people

Business Recorder

18-05-2025

Ajay Banga, the President of the World Bank, has said the following about Indus Water Treaty: 'There is no provision in the treaty to allow for suspension the way it was drawn up. It either needs to be gone, or replaced by another one, and that requires the two countries to want to agree.'
He further stated that the Bank plays no decision-making role in the Indus Waters Treaty and acts solely as a facilitator: 'We have to pay the fees of those guys through a trust fund that was set up at the Bank at the time of creation of the treaty. That's our role. We have no role to play beyond that.'
The writer is fond of looking at the pedigree to determine the discourse by a person. The sensible statement of Mr Banga, a person of Indian origin, reflects the nobleness of the pedigree. The search revealed that Mr Banga's family is originally from Jalandhar, Indian Punjab. His father, Harbhajan Singh Banga, is a retired lieutenant-general of the Indian army.
This mind-set is completely different from that of Narendra Modi, who has jeopardized the lives of 1.7 billion (population of India and Pakistan) living in this area since he came to power in 2014; especially, through a misadventure on May 6 and 7, 2025. Though Mr Modi has a Master's Degree; however, he has not worked in any organisation ever to understand realities. He has misunderstood the dynamics of history, culture and mind-set of the people on both sides of the line of control. Now I dwell on some historical facts.
The Indus Water Treaty, which governs the sharing of waters of the Indus River system between India and Pakistan, was indeed signed on September 19, 1960, and subsequent protocols were signed on November 27, and December 2 and 23 of the same year. It is not a bilateral document. It is a tripartite treaty. The third party is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank).
It may be considered one of the most comprehensive treaties for water distribution where matters relating to waters of six rivers were settled. This is a unique one in the world with no precedent of this type of relocation of resources.
The treaty included financial aspects also by way of Article V. Under that Article India paid 62 million pounds sterling for the construction of water works in Pakistan. These funds were managed by the World Bank. This is a settled position and the lifeline for the economy of Pakistan. At this stage the relevance of this treaty for Pakistan's agriculture is not the subject; however, there cannot be any unilateral action of this subject between two nuclear states as clarified by Mr Banga.
The four-day war between India and Pakistan has ended after the intervention of US President Donald Trump. It is a continuation of a misery due to which 1.7 billion people living in this region are facing. This economic issue emanates from the RSS mind-set of a person from Gujarat who does not understand the facts and realities. This misery cannot continue for another seventy five years as is being shown by Modi and Indian media. The problem and solution are summarily discussed in the following paragraphs.
The amounts of expenditure incurred by Pakistan and India on defence on a yearly basis are available in public domain; these are at US $ 82 billion and US $ 11 billion for India and Pakistan, respectively. This difference is in line with the population and GDPs of the two countries. However, it is commendable that our forces won against India in the four-day war earlier this month. This shows utter incompetence of Indian forces and gallantry of Pakistan armed forces.
It is understandable that there are some problems between the two states for over seventy seven years. These issues are:
a. The equitable distribution of water of Indus basis region as all the rivers in this basin start in the Indian or Indian occupied territory;
b. The right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
In this writer's view, the Indus Water Treaty has amicably resolved the matter and no sensible person would like to disturb that settled status of an international agreement. There are very limited choices for both the countries.
The real issue, which remains unsettled, is the Kashmir dispute. India, in this respect, is ignoring certain pertinent facts. Some of which are:
a. Firstly, the case of Kashmir is exactly similar to Indian Hyderabad. In Kashmir there was a predominant Muslim population with a Hindu ruler; whereas in Hyderabad there was a Muslim ruler for a predominant Hindu population. In both the cases, irrespective of prejudices, substance has to prevail over form. The form was the decision of the ruler. That is practically irrelevant. The substance is that if the predominant population is Muslim or Hindu then the state has to be aligned to the dominion having respective religion when the primary division was made on the basis of religions of majority of people;
b. Secondly, Hyderabad was surrounded on four sides by India. It was a geographical reality that this area was a part of India. Exactly the same is the case in Kashmir which is not understood by many Indians and even by some Pakistanis.
c. Thirdly, prior to 1947 there was only one all-weather road to Srinagar, which was from Rawalpindi to Srinagar via Murree. This route had been there for centuries and all the Indians who visited Kashmir before 1947 used this route. The visits by India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru through this route regularly constitute a case in point. So did Pakistan's founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah use this route. There was a very dangerous road through the Banihal pass, which used to remain shut for almost half of the year. It was not a natural route. Later, Indians constructed a tunnel, by-passing the Banihal pass. Banihal in Kashmiri language means 'blizzard'. There is a railway line between Sialkot and Jammu and distance between the two cities is only 40 kilometers. The history of this line is:
The Sialkot-Jammu rail link was opened in 1890 and closed after the Partition of India in 1947. The line was a 43 km (27 mi) broad gauge branch of the North Western State Railway, connecting Wazirabad Junction in Punjab to Jammu, passing through Sialkot Junction. The line was built under the rule of Maharaja Pratap Singh and was the first railway line in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It was a vital transportation route for trade and commerce, particularly in the sugar trade. The line was abandoned after the Partition, and a replacement line was built from Pathankot to Jammu.
Whereas, the distance between Pathankot and Jammu is 106 km. The history of this railway line as described by independent Wikipedia is as under:
The Jalandhar–Jammu line is a railway line connecting Jalandhar Cantonment and Jalandhar City in the Indian state of Punjab with Jammu Tawi in Jammu and Kashmir. The line is under the administrative jurisdiction of Northern Railway. This line was made after Indian Independence in 1947. Normally before partition of India and creation of Pakistan, trains to Jammu Tawi from Delhi used to run via Panipat, Ambala Cantonment, Ludhiana, Jalandhar City, Amritsar, Lahore, Narowal and Sialkot. But after partition and creation of Pakistan in 1947, the Sialkot–Jammu Tawi line was dismantled and closed permanently. Jammu and Kashmir became cut off from the rest of India. Hence in 1949, it was decided to extend the line from Jalandhar City to Mukerian till Pathankot and after the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, this line was extended to Jammu Tawi. This 216 km (134 mi) railway line is an important strategic connectivity for Indian Military and Defence.
Indians are trying to create unnatural geographical links, which will always remain unnatural.
d. Fourthly, all the people living in Kashmir are related to people living in Pakistan. Or, in other words, they are not at all related to those living in India. There are four distinct regions in Kashmir viz. (i) the Valley being Srinagar as capital. It is a valley of River Jhelum and partly Chenab; (ii) Jammu being an area linked with Sialkot by rail before Partition as described above; (iii) Gilgit and Baltistan and (iv) Ladakh. The adjoining area of India with Kashmir is Himachal Pradesh and Pathankot area of Punjab. Any person knowing basic anthropology will agree that people living in Jammu have nothing in common with those on the Indian side, effectively the Kangra Valley. With respect to the people of other regions, there is no doubt that these people have no cultural, historical, religious, political or social ties with those in India. Even Ladakh, a Buddhist area, is very much close to Tibet (China), not India.
e. Fifthly, the unnatural rulers of Kashmir who decided in favour of India were not even rulers of Kashmiris as they represented only a clan in Jammu and unlike all other precedents in the world actually bought an area for 'cash' from the British rulers.
There cannot be any dispute on the aforesaid facts and no Indian scholar or historian can challenge the same. However, the writer accepts that an aberration arose in Kashmir affairs with the role of National Conference and Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah's politics. The purpose here is not to discuss that role; however, it is a fact that despite all actions by Pakistan and India the grandson of Sheikh Abdullah is the Chief Minister of the Illegally Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. He advocates that Article 35A and 370 of the Indian Constitution must be restored. The writer would not discount the position of his party. There are only two primary questions for the leaders of both India and Pakistan:
a. Would India be able to control the area without its around 600,000 forces placed in the region and maintain deletion of Article 35A and 370 of the Indian Constitution? And
b. Would Pakistan ever be able to militarily occupy Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir Kashmir?
The truth is that the answer to both these questions is in the negative though the leaders and a lot of people of the region are not ready to listen to the truth. The next truth is that there cannot be a nuclear confrontation. The greater problem lies with India as it considers that it may subdue Pakistan by its might which is not practically possible. Furthermore, India cannot ignore the fact that out of a total population of around 13 million of Illegally Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir a lot of Kashmiris have families on both sides of the Line of Control (LOC). Their travel can never be stopped. The length of the LOC is around 470 miles which can never be secured. They call them 'terrorists'. We call them Kashmiris living on both sides of the LOC.
Whatever has happened in 2025 is not new and exciting. Almost the same happened in 1948, 1965, 1971, 1991, 2016 and 2019. The solution is not war. The solution is dialogue with three parties being there. Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris. Who truly represents Kashmir can be questioned; however, the arbitration by any neutral party is to be limited to that aspect only. All other aspects are to be agreed upon by these three parties. When France and England can sit together after a hundred years' war and Japan can be a big trading partner of the USA after a nuclear attack then why there cannot be an agreement between Pakistan and India. The lives of 1.7 billion people cannot be jeopardized. The Indian society in particular has to fully appreciate the situation.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025