Latest news with #PermanentIndusCommission
Indian Express
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Opinion Indus Water Treaty has been unfair to India. Delhi should abrogate it
Pakistan defends the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) ferociously, and for good reason. It had exploited its alliance with the US to the hilt to get India to sign it. In international circles, the treaty is cited as an outstanding example of river water sharing because of its scale and the hostility between the signatories. But the IWT was not about sharing river waters — it was about partitioning the rivers of northwestern India, giving Pakistan near-full rights to the waters of the three rivers in Jammu and Kashmir. The IWT claimed 'to attain the most… satisfactory utilisation of the waters of the Indus system' and provided for data exchange, cooperation and a bilateral Permanent Indus Commission for resolution of issues. But Pakistan was not interested in cooperation. What mattered to it was preventing India from exercising its limited rights to the J&K rivers. Broadly, the treaty gave India full access to the waters on the 'eastern' rivers — Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. The waters of the 'western' rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — were given to Pakistan, but India was allowed some use for agriculture, and run-of-river dams for hydroelectricity with limited storage. On the face of it, this seemed an equitable distribution. But the three western rivers had 80 per cent of the water — despite the fact that 39 per cent of the Indus Basin is in India. Pakistan has 47 per cent. The remainder is with China (Tibet) and Afghanistan, which are not parties to the IWT. The treaty gave Pakistan the right to inspect any construction by India on the rivers in J&K and invoke one of the two dispute settlement processes — a Neutral Expert or a Court of Arbitration. The World Bank became the treaty's custodian with the power to appoint adjudicators. India also agreed to pay 62 million pounds to Pakistan for building link canals to switch from the eastern to the western rivers. An amusing provision was that the people authorised to nominate the arbitrators included the president of MIT and the rector of London's Imperial College of Science and Technology. The World Bank, which had started work on the treaty in 1952, succeeded when it got the US, UK, Canada, West Germany, Australia and New Zealand to underwrite a development fund of $1 billion for the construction of dams and irrigation networks in both countries. Pakistan got an additional $315 million. The Bank funded dams in both countries. When the IWT was signed, the process of codifying international law on the issue had not started. The international customary law, such as it was at the time, was disputed — upper riparians claimed sovereign rights over their waters and lower riparians demanded unimpeded flow. The codification of the law on sharing river waters was set in motion by the UN General Assembly in 1970 when it tasked the International Law Commission to draft one on the non-navigational uses of international watercourses. Progress was slow. An initial draft had declared rivers as a 'shared natural resource'. This was opposed by many countries and it eventually settled on a less ambitious formulation calling on countries to develop and share their rivers in 'an equitable and reasonable manner'. The ILC completed its task in 1994 and the UNGA adopted the watercourses convention in 1997, with 103 countries voting in favour. China, Turkey and Burundi voted against it. India abstained, as did Pakistan. The treaty came into force in 2014, but only 43 countries have ratified it so far. India, China and Pakistan are not among them. Sixty-five years on, the IWT remains well ahead of the evolution of international law. Its most unreasonable provision is the absence of an exit clause or expiry date. The Columbia River Treaty between the US and Canada, signed in 1961, is also permanent, but since 2024, it has a provision allowing either country to withdraw after giving a 10-year notice. Even the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties provides for the termination of a treaty if there are fundamental changes in circumstances. It's difficult to find any other example of an upper riparian giving the kind of rights India has. Pakistan's friend, Turkey, refuses to enter into an agreement with Syria and Iraq, the lower riparians of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. China too has no agreements with downstream countries in South and Southeast Asia on sharing the waters of Tibet's rivers. Despite getting a good deal, Pakistan's approach to the IWT has been anything but cooperative. It has raised objections to every project conceived by India in J&K. In the 1970s, it disputed the Salal Hydroelectric Project on the Chenab. India was unwilling to invoke the dispute settlement mechanism and, in 1978, accepted Pakistan's design changes. The dam was completed but its efficiency got impaired due to siltation. India started the Tulbul Navigation Project in 1984 but it remains incomplete due to Pakistan's objections. When work started on the Baglihar project in 1999, India refused to remove the gated spillway, essential for desiltation, and let Pakistan take it to a Neutral Expert in 2005. Raymond Lafitte, the Swiss Neutral Expert, upheld the spillway, but allowed some minor design changes. The response in Pakistan was hostile, and there were calls for abrogating the treaty. When the Kishanganga project started, Pakistan asked for a Court of Arbitration, which upheld the project with some design changes. Pakistan then raised questions about the design of the Kishanganga and Ratle hydel projects and the World Bank appointed a Neutral Expert. Pakistan also asked for a Court of Arbitration. The Bank initially resisted the idea since it could lead to contradictory decisions, but it eventually gave in. India, however, refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings and insisted that the Permanent Indus Commission should meet to modify the treaty to address the anomalies. In the absence of a positive response from Pakistan, the Commission has not met since May 2022. India has now declared that it will keep the treaty in abeyance. This only gives temporary relief. It will have to remove any construction it does in this period when the treaty is reactivated if found to be in violation. The real issue is the unfairly high share of the water to Pakistan, which can only be corrected by a full-scale revision of the treaty. Pakistan's reaction will be equally hostile to both steps. India may as well strengthen its hand by abrogating the treaty.
Arab News
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Panic in Pakistan as India vows to cut off water supply over Kashmir attack
HYDERABAD, Pakistan: Spraying pesticides on his parched ridge gourd cultivation a street away from the Indus River, Pakistani farmer Homla Thakhur is worried about his future. The sun is at its peak, the river is running very low, and India has vowed to cut supplies upstream after a deadly militant attack in Kashmir. 'If they stop water, all of this will turn into the Thar desert, the whole country. The basic issue is water. Nothing is possible without water,' said Thakhur, 40, before heading back to the river to refill the tank for the spray gun. 'If water comes, it will bring prosperity, otherwise we will die of hunger,' he said. His nearly 5-acre (2 hectare) farm is located in the Latifabad area of the southeastern province of Sindh, from where the Indus flows into the Arabian Sea after originating in Tibet and snaking through India. Thakhur's fears were echoed by more than 15 Pakistani farmers and several other experts, especially as rain has been scanty in recent years. For the first time, India on Wednesday (April 23) suspended the World Bank-mediated Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 that ensures water for 80 percent of Pakistani farms, saying it would last until 'Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.' India says two of the three militants who attacked tourists and killed 26 men in Kashmir were from Pakistan. Islamabad has denied any role and said 'any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan ... and the usurpation of the rights of lower riparian will be considered as an Act of War.' The treaty split the Indus and its tributaries between the nuclear-armed rivals. Two Indian government officials, who declined to be named discussing a sensitive subject, said the country could within months start diverting the water for its own agriculture, using canals while planning hydroelectric dams that could take four to seven years to finish. Immediately, India will stop sharing data like hydrological flows at various sites of the rivers flowing through India, withhold flood warnings and skip annual meetings under the Permanent Indus Commission headed by one official each from the two countries, said Kushvinder Vohra, a recently retired head of India's Central Water Commission. Nadeem Shah, who has a 150-acre farm in Sindh where he grows cotton, sugar cane, wheat and vegetables, employing 50 people, said he was also worried about drinking water. 'Allah is the provider. There will be rains, God willing, and the water will come, but yes, this is a potential threat at the moment,' he said. The three rivers meant for Pakistan, a country of 240 million people, irrigate more than 16 million hectares of farmland, or up to 80 percent of the total. Ghasharib Shaokat of Pakistan Agriculture Research, a Karachi research firm, said India's actions inject uncertainty 'into a system that was never designed for unpredictability.' The treaty remained largely unscathed even when India and Pakistan fought four wars since separating in 1947, but the suspension sets a dangerous precedent, Pakistani politicians said. 'My biggest concern is that we are already locked into generations of conflict, and by exiting the Indus Water Treaty, I believe we're locking future generations into a brand new context of conflict between India and Pakistan,' said Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Pakistan's former foreign minister. 'That must not happen.'
The Hindu
28-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Indus Waters Treaty Suspended: How Water Became the New Frontline Between India and Pakistan
Published : Apr 28, 2025 13:49 IST - 11 MINS READ It was a treaty that withstood wars, coups, and crises—a rare triumph of diplomacy in a region otherwise defined by turbulence and mistrust. For over six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) acted as a stabilising firewall between two nuclear-armed neighbours, shielding water from the incendiary pressures of geopolitics. But that fragile firewall has cracked in 2025. A brutal terror attack in Pahalgam in which 26 tourists were killed allegedly by Pakistan-backed militants has led India to suspend the treaty—a punitive measure against Pakistan that reverberated through the capitals across the world. However, even prior to the Pahalgam incident, the Permanent Indus Commission—the teams of experts from India and Pakistan that attempt to resolve disputes regarding the sharing of the waters of the Indus basin—had not convened since 2022. In 2023, India had called on Pakistan to 'renegotiate' the treaty, citing changed circumstances including demographic shifts, increased water requirements, climate-related catastrophes, and the rising threat of cross-border terrorism. India was primarily demanding to evolve a new dispute resolution mechanism, as the existing one had become obsolete. Also Read | In Kashmir, even sorrow must pass a loyalty test Under the IWT, India cannot create significant hydropower storage on the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—and must maintain water flows to avoid disrupting Pakistan's agriculture. India's hydropower projects like Kishanganga and Baglihar are 'run-of-the-river,' diverting but not halting flows. Nevertheless, Pakistan routinely accused India of tweaking designs to control river flows. India clarified that any design changes aimed solely at maintaining project viability, not weaponising water. A key question now is whether India must formally notify the World Bank about its decision to suspend the IWT, or whether informing only the Neutral Expert—currently examining the India-Pakistan dispute—would suffice. Michel Lino, President of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), was appointed Neutral Expert by the World Bank in 2022. New Delhi may opt to notify just him, effectively halting the Kishanganga-Ratle dispute mechanism and placing the IWT into suspension. Officials called it 'a proportionate response,' but the suspension sent a stark signal: the era of hydro-diplomacy was over. Immediate Measures India, now unshackled from the treaty's obligations, is actively exploring ways to exert hydraulic pressure on Pakistan. Among the immediate measures: India plans to alter the seasonal release of water from its reservoirs. In what some are calling an eco-strategic chokehold, New Delhi will now flush and refill reservoirs not during the monsoon, but in the dry season—from October to February—thus disrupting Pakistan's sowing season. A Pakistani agriculture scientist told Frontline that major Kharif crops such as cotton, maize, sugarcane, pulses, and oilseeds are expected to be significantly affected, plunging the region into food insecurity. And in the long term, India plans to construct and upgrade a cascade of dams along the Indus system, raising fears of both ecological degradation and regional destabilisation. Mohan Guruswamy, a scholar and author, reflects on the enduring realities of geography: 'After the Uri incident, our Prime Minister said, 'blood and water cannot flow together.' The truth is that the flow of blood can be stopped, but water will continue to flow.' Guruswamy highlights that while revisiting the treaty made sense due to Pakistan's persistent misuse of the IWT's dispute provisions to block India's legitimate hydel projects, physically halting the waters of the Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum remains near-impossible. The Kashmir Valley, a picturesque but isolated bowl just 100 km wide and 15,520.30 sq km in area, is enclosed by the Pir Panjal range—an imposing 5,000-metre-high wall separating it from the plains of northern India. Water transfer across this formidable barrier is not feasible. Of the three Western rivers allocated to Pakistan, the Indus crosses into Pakistan-controlled territory near Kargil; the Jhelum, originating near Verinag, snakes through Srinagar and the Wular Lake before entering Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; and the Chenab rises in Himachal Pradesh and plunges through narrow valleys into Pakistan's Punjab, dropping as much as 24 metres per kilometre—making harnessing it economically and technically challenging. Noted glaciologist and Vice-Chancellor of the Kashmir-based Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST) Dr Shakil Ahmad Romshoo, elaborates: 'Let us assume we stop the water supply for the sake of argument. Where would the water go? We do not have infrastructure to store this water. We have not built 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 the water technically.' Romshoo warns that even if attempts were made, they would collide headlong with harsher realities: 'Climate change is upon us with severe implicit consequences for both countries, but mostly for Pakistan.' He argues that the IWT was glaringly outdated in the face of climate change. His research shows that precipitation patterns have shifted, snow has given way to rain, and water availability has become erratic. 'The rivers of North India live off Himalayan glaciers. They provide 85% of the water. Yet, there is no mention of climate change or environmental flow in the treaty.' He also sees missed opportunities. 'Kishanganga could have been a model for cooperation—a joint electricity-sharing project. Instead, it became a legal battle.' Current projections suggest that the Indus River system's flow will dip significantly between 2030 and 2050, dropping 20 per cent below 2000 levels after 2060. Pakistan is not just running out of water; it is running out of time. The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, after nearly a decade of negotiations. Brokered by the World Bank, it allocated the three Eastern rivers—Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej—to India, and the three Western rivers—Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum—to Pakistan. The treaty was hailed as an engineering and diplomatic marvel, offering a structured mechanism for dispute resolution and engineering collaboration. The Indus River system has a total drainage area exceeding 1,165,000 sq km. Its estimated annual flow stands at around 207 km³, making it the twenty-first largest river in the world in terms of annual flow. Eighty per cent of its cultivated land in Pakistan—about 16 million hectares—relies on water from the Indus system. Nearly 93 per cent of the water from the Indus is used for irrigation, powering the country's agricultural backbone and contributing nearly 25 per cent of Pakistan's GDP. 'When it was negotiated, the goal was to take territorial and political issues off the table and focus solely on sharing water,' says Ashfaq Mahmood, former water secretary of Pakistan. 'It was successful and survived because it compartmentalised water from the rest of the India-Pakistan conflict.' The treaty allowed India to build 'run-of-river' hydroelectric projects on the Western rivers, provided they did not impound or divert flows. However, disputes over the design and execution of these projects emerged repeatedly. From Wullar Barrage to Kishanganga, the disagreements ranged from the placement of gates to the size of reservoirs and the interpretation of design parameters. 'The IWT was written long before the Helsinki rules. Yet it laid down clear principles: which river belongs to whom, who manages what, and how disputes should be resolved,' said Mahmood. 'But where it falters is not in its structure, but in the lack of trust and the absence of timelines.' Cumbersome Dispute Resolution One of the treaty's strengths—its multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanism (DRM)—had increasingly become a source of contention. It involved the Permanent Indus Commission, escalating to the appointment of a Neutral Expert, and finally to the Court of Arbitration by the World Bank. But as Mahmood pointed out, the treaty never established firm timelines for each stage. 'Talks go on for years. There should be an automatic trigger: if the commission cannot resolve an issue in a year, the next level of DRM should start.' Mahmood recalls negotiating over the Baglihar Dam with Indian counterpart V.K. Duggal in 2004. 'We agreed to halt construction until November while talks continued. But later, India insisted that the agreement remain an unwritten understanding. That's where bilateralism failed.' Suspending the treaty will allow India to fast-track dam construction on the Western rivers. In Jammu & Kashmir's Chenab Valley, seven major dams are underway: Pakal Dul (1,000 MW), Kwar (540 MW), Kiru (624 MW), Kirthai I and II (1,320 MW), Bursar (800 MW), and Ratle (930 MW). Collectively, they aim to generate over 5,000 MW of hydroelectric power. Arun Kumar Bajaj, former head of India's Central Water Commission, believes that technological advancements necessitate design changes. 'In Salal, we agreed to Pakistan's demand for high-level gates. Now the dam is 37 metres silted. We can't flush the silt. Our power output has declined.' Bajaj argues that new projects require bottom gates for silt management—a position that Pakistan routinely objects to. 'There's no cooperation when objections are raised on everything.' Even Bajaj, however, cautions against scrapping the treaty altogether. 'Revision will take a century. Supplementary protocols are the better route.' Annukka Lipponen of Finland's Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry points to Nordic examples. Despite tensions from the Russia-Ukraine war, Finland, Norway, and Russia continue their tripartite data-sharing on cross-border rivers. 'Strong legal frameworks and mutual dependence keep cooperation alive, even in conflict.' She suggests India and Pakistan explore similar models. 'The upper riparian needs energy, the lower riparian needs food. Trade electricity for water security. That's how you build peace.' Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington, says any future framework must address three factors: climate resilience, ecological protection, and community rights. 'The treaty was written for a different era. Today's realities—glacial melt, seismic zones, displaced communities—demand new thinking.' Yet trust remains elusive. 'When India wins at the Court of Arbitration, Pakistan complains. When Pakistan gets a favourable ruling, India drags its feet.' Ashfaq Mahmood sums it up: 'The problem is not the treaty. It's the mindset.' Legal Issues Yet questions linger about the legal footing of India's suspension. Under international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969, changes of circumstances are not recognised grounds for terminating or suspending treaties. In a landmark 1984 case, the International Court of Justice rejected the US argument that it could abandon a treaty with Nicaragua based on changed conditions. This precedent casts doubt on whether India's invocation of terrorism, population shifts, or climate impacts would justify a unilateral suspension under established international norms. India's decision to suspend the IWT marks a geopolitical and ecological inflexion point. With monsoon flows no longer coordinated and dam-building surging ahead, Pakistan faces a perilous future. Hydrologists warn of seawater intrusion into the Indus delta. Farmers speak of parched fields and falling yields. And climate scientists fear that without urgent reforms, both nations will find themselves not just in a water war, but in a water catastrophe. The fast-tracking of projects has already sent shock waves locally. According to researcher Safina Nabi, who documented the displacement in Kishtwar, 36 households in Sewarbatti village alone lost 230 kanals of land to the Pakal Dul project. Compensation was a mere ₹230,000 per kanal—insufficient even to buy land in adjacent villages. Villager Ghulam Hassan Magray lamented, 'We were self-sufficient—we grew our own food. Now our new homes have cracks because of continuous blasting under our hill. We live in fear.' Asif Hussain, sarpanch of Janakpur's Thachna village, said villagers were promised jobs and compensation for fruit trees—promises that remain unfulfilled. 'We are only being asked to run from one government office to another with a bunch of files.' A decade ago, when the NHPC began construction of the 330-MW Kishanganga project in scenic Gurez Valley in Kashmir, nearly 300 families of the Dard-Sheena tribe belonging to three villages—Badwan, Wanpora, and Khopri—were dislocated and shifted to Srinagar city. Also Read | Upping the ante: What placing the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance spells for India and Pakistan Against their peers across the Kanzalwan mountains in Bandipora, they got better compensation—₹5.75 lakh per kanal against ₹2.25 lakh per kanal for more fertile land. But the explanation of their getting better compensation was amazing. The then Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir, Asghar Samoon, explained that this double compensation was because these people were losing their culture and civilisation, and within a few decades, they would become almost extinct in the bustle of Srinagar city. That is exactly what happened. What is intriguing is that NHPC officials kept the voluminous Environmental Assessment of Kishanganga River, undertaken by the Centre for Inter-disciplinary Studies of Mountain and Hill Environment, close to their chest. They refused even to share it with the State government. The ecological cost of making huge dams in fragile mountains is equally worrying. Michael Kugelman warns: 'These dams are in a high seismic zone. Seven major dams in close proximity amplify the risk of a major earthquake.' Whether the Indus becomes a bridge to cooperation or a faultline of conflict depends on choices made now. The rivers still flow. But will dialogue? The next chapter may lie not in Delhi or Islamabad, but in Kishtwar's blasted hills, in Punjab's thirsty fields, and in the melting glaciers that feed them all. Iftikhar Gilani is an Indian journalist based in Ankara.
Time of India
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
From Salal to Ratle, a series of constraints: Indus Waters Treaty and the cost of cooperation
While the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is often hailed as one of the most 'successful' international water-sharing agreements , a closer look at the disputes surrounding it tells a more sobering story. Rather than being a consistent triumph, India's experience with the IWT reflects a history of delays, operational compromises, and prolonged constraints, often stretching over decades. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack India stares at a 'water bomb' threat as it freezes Indus Treaty India readies short, mid & long-term Indus River plans Shehbaz Sharif calls India's stand "worn-out narrative" Salal Project: The First Major Dispute The first major project under dispute was the 690 MW Salal hydroelectric project on the Chenab River in Reasi, Jammu and Kashmir. In 1968, as per treaty requirements, India submitted the project design to the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) for Pakistan's review. Pakistan raised several objections concerning the dam's height, design, and diversion canals. Although India considered escalating the matter to the World Bank 's Neutral Expert mechanism , it eventually conceded to Pakistan's demands, keen to maintain the spirit of the 1972 Shimla Agreement. In 1978, India agreed to significant design modifications, including: Reduction in dam height Elimination of the operating pool Sealing of the crucial undersluices for sediment management The Salal project was completed in 1987 but soon suffered from sedimentation problems. Without the under-sluices, the reservoir quickly turned into an elevated riverbed, and the project's capacity fell to nearly 57%, severely impairing its efficiency and lifespan. Live Events Kishanganga and Ratle Projects: Disputes Continue The 330 MW Kishanganga project , launched in 2006, became the first project under the IWT to face arbitration at the Court of Arbitration (CoA). Pakistan objected to India's water diversion from the Kishanganga (Neelum) River and moved the CoA in 2010. The CoA's 2013 ruling was a mixed outcome for India: it allowed the diversion but mandated a minimum downstream flow to Pakistan. Dissatisfied, Pakistan sought further arbitration on Kishanganga's design in 2016. Simultaneously, Pakistan raised objections to the 850 MW Ratle project in 2012. In 2022, it initiated parallel proceedings at the World Bank, invoking both the CoA and Neutral Expert mechanisms. India opposed this dual-track approach and, for the first time, issued a formal notice to Pakistan on January 25, 2023, seeking treaty modification, followed by a second notice on August 30, 2024. As of now, both Kishanganga and Ratle projects remain pending before the Neutral Expert. Tulbul Project: A Dispute Left Unresolved The second major dispute centred around the Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project, initiated by India in 1984 at the mouth of Wullar Lake on the Jhelum River. Pakistan objected, claiming it constituted a 'storage' project prohibited under the IWT. It raised the issue with the PIC in 1986, and construction was halted in 1987. Despite multiple rounds of bilateral discussions until 2006, the project's viability eventually eroded. Faced with Pakistan's persistent objections and broader diplomatic concerns, India effectively abandoned the Tulbul project, the longest unresolved dispute under the IWT. Baglihar Project: A Case Taken to the World Bank The 900 MW Baglihar hydroelectric project on the Chenab followed about a decade later. India served the mandatory prior notice to Pakistan in 1992, but objections soon surfaced, particularly concerning the gated spillways (added to prevent Salal-like sedimentation) and storage capacities. Tensions escalated after India awarded a construction contract in 1999. Eventually, the matter was taken to the World Bank in 2005, where Raymond Lafitte was appointed as the Neutral Expert. After extended proceedings, Lafitte's 2007 ruling largely upheld India's design, including the contentious gated spillways. The dispute was formally resolved in 2010.
Time of India
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Panic in Pakistan as India vows to cut off water supply over Kashmir
Live Events RUNNING DISPUTES (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Spraying pesticides on his parched vegetables one street away from the Indus River, Pakistani farmer Homla Thakhur is worried about his future. The sun is at its peak, the river is running very low, and India has vowed to cut supplies upstream after a deadly militant attack in Kashmir."If they stop water, all of this will turn into the Thar desert, the whole country," said Thakhur, 40, before heading back to the river to refill the tank for the spray gun."We'll die of hunger."His nearly 5-acre (2 hectare) farm is located in the Latifabad area of the southeastern province of Sindh, from where the Indus flows into the Arabian Sea after originating in Tibet and snaking through fears were echoed by more than 15 Pakistani farmers and several other experts, especially as rain has been scanty in recent the first time, India on Wednesday suspended the World Bank-mediated Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 that ensures water for 80% of Pakistani farms, saying it would last until "Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism".India says two of the three terrorists who attacked tourists and killed 26 men in Kashmir were from Pakistan. Islamabad has denied any role and said "any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan ... will be considered as an Act of War".The treaty split the Indus and its tributaries between the nuclear-armed officials and experts on both sides say India cannot stop water flows immediately, because the treaty has allowed it to only build hydropower plants without significant storage or dams on the three rivers allocated to Pakistan. But things could start changing in a few months."We will ensure no drop of the Indus River's water reaches Pakistan," India's water resources minister, Chandrakant Raghunath Paatil, said on did not respond to questions about the fears in Indian government officials, who declined to be identified discussing a sensitive subject, said the country could within months start diverting the water for its own farms using canals while planning hydroelectric dams that could take four to seven years to India will stop sharing data like hydrological flows at various sites of the rivers flowing through India, withhold flood warnings and skip annual meetings under the Permanent Indus Commission headed by one official each from the two countries, said Kushvinder Vohra, a recently retired head of India's Central Water Commission."They will not have much information with them when the water is coming, how much is coming," said Vohra, who was also India's Indus Commissioner and now advises the government occasionally."Without the information, they cannot plan."And it is not just agriculture, a shortage of water will also hit electricity generation and potentially cripple the economy, economists Ahmed, economist and team lead with UK consulting firm Oxford Policy Management, said that Pakistan had underestimated the threat of India walking away from the treaty."India hasn't got the kind of immediate infrastructure to halt the waterflows, especially during flood times, so this period creates a crucial window for Pakistan to address the inefficiencies in its water sector," he said."There are a lot of inefficiencies, leakages."In recent years, Modi government has been seeking to renegotiate the treaty and the two countries have been trying to settle some of their differences in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague over the size of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric plants' water storage area."We can now pursue our projects in free will," said a letter on Thursday, India told Pakistan that circumstances had changed since the treaty was signed, including population increases and the need for more cleaner energy sources, referring to hydropower.A World Bank spokesperson said it was a "signatory to the treaty for a limited set of defined tasks" and that it does "not opine on treaty-related sovereign decisions taken by its member countries".Nadeem Shah, who has a 150-acre farm in Sindh where he grows cotton, sugar cane, wheat and vegetables, said he was also worried about drinking water."We have trust in God, but there are concerns over India's actions," he three rivers meant for Pakistan, a country of 240 million people, irrigate more than 16 million hectares of farmland, or up to 80% of the Shaokat of Pakistan Agriculture Research, a Karachi research firm, said India's actions inject uncertainty "into a system that was never designed for unpredictability"."At this moment, we don't have a substitute," he said. "The rivers governed by the treaty support not just crops, but cities, power generation, and millions of livelihoods."The treaty remained largely unscathed even when India and Pakistan fought four wars since separating in 1947, but the suspension sets a dangerous precedent, Pakistani politicians said."We're already locked into generations of conflict, and by exiting the Indus Water Treaty , I believe we're locking future generations into a brand new context of conflict," said Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Pakistan's former foreign minister."That must not happen."
