Water: not enough or far too much

[Maroof Hussain Chishty]

Water: not enough or far too much

By Irfan Husain
Wednesday, 04 Aug, 2010

In this climate of distrust and animosity, some statements from both sides have not been conducive to a peaceful solution, writes Irfan Husain

In the lovely, peaceful corner of Canada where I am at present, I find myself compulsively switching on the TV to watch the heartbreaking images of the thousands of Pakistanis suffering untold horrors in the north-west of the country. And as floods now threaten other parts of the country as well, it might seem singularly inappropriate to write an article about the water shortages that have begun to affect the lives of millions, and threaten to get much worse.


Recently, the Globe and Mail, one of Canada’s foremost newspapers, carried a series of three long articles on the looming water crisis in South Asia by Graeme Smith. I was pleasantly surprised as normally, I’m afraid the dailies I have read in Canada are pretty skimpy in their coverage of world affairs.The series kicks off with these evocative words: “The Indus looks nothing like the mighty river from history books. Alexander the Great once sailed galleys along these waters; centuries later, the British used steamboats. Now, the decaying remains of boats are stranded high on the sandy banks, dozens of metres above the brown trickle that was once a legendary river…”

Although it’s not exactly a trickle just now as the water level rises, with a heavy spate on the way, the Indus’s long-term prospects seem grim indeed. Already, the bad-tempered squabbles over sharing the river’s water that have marked the recent discussions between Pakistan’s provinces are an indicator of things to come. And the rising chorus of voices blaming India for our water shortages add a further edge of urgency to the debate.

As I wrote a couple of months ago, we tend to forget that a major reason for the current shortage is the steep rise in our population that has grown from 50 million in 1960 to an estimated 175 million now. Thus, it should not come as a surprise if water availability per capita should record an inverse drop from 5,000 cubic feet per head in 1960 to 1,500 cubit feet presently. As our numbers continue their inexorable rise, water per person availability will fall still further. The very real prospect of global warming causing our northern glaciers to melt raises the prospect of sharply diminished river levels in the future.

Already, street protests over the situation are growing common. Graeme Smith cites a World Bank report as underlining the fact that volume of fresh water now reaching the sea has dropped to zero in some years. Apart from playing havoc with coastal areas as seawater is now encroaching upon areas the river once irrigated, this fall in the Indus’s bounty has caused the extinction of some 31 species of fresh water fish. Smith meets Mahmood Nawaz Shah, the secretary-general of the Sindh Growers Board, who says that the province now leaves 44 per cent of its arable land unused as against 28pc in 1947.

One of the principal figures in the ongoing war of words over water with India is Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner. In an interview, Smith asks him why so many Pakistanis are unhappy with the Indus Water Treaty. Shah replies: “India got the headworks of our canals [in 1947] and wanted to green their deserts. Pakistan could not afford a war. We were a new state, with meagre resources. So we made this treaty. It was not a happy marriage. People often say the treaty isn’t good, but we own it. We have to work with it.”

Replying to a question about Pakistan’s objections to Indian hydroelectric projects upstream, Shah replies: “The issue is gates. Why does India need gates on the rivers? Why does it need the ability to cut off our water, even temporarily? They are pushing the limits of the treaty. They are breaking the spirit of the agreement. They promise not to manipulate our water, but who knows what can happen in the future?”

Who, indeed? The good news is that according to Smith, India has agreed to install a satellite-based telemetry system on the Indus to monitor the flow. Bashir Ahmed Malik was one of the team of engineers who assisted the negotiators, and recalls that prior to the treaty, “Both sides were threatening war. India was shutting the canals, starving or flooding us.” In this sense, it is certain that the treaty has given the two countries 50 years of peace, on this count at least.

In this climate of distrust and animosity, some statements from both sides have not been conducive to a peaceful solution. Bellicose figures have appeared on TV in Pakistan to threaten India. Equally unhelpful was a report published by the Indian chamber of commerce in 2008 in which water was listed as one of the possible ways to retaliate against a future terrorist attack from Pakistan.

But Pakistani farmers are not the only ones to regret the signing of the treaty. In Indian-held Kashmir, a recurring power shortage is cause for vocal criticism. Smith writes: “The fact that Kashmir struggles for every last megawatt of electricity has become a tense political issue in a state already seething with rebellion. As quarrels erupt between India and Pakistan over the Indus River and its tributaries, the people who live near the waters’ source in the Himalayan mountains are trying to stake their own claim.”Pakistan has long objected to hydro-electrical projects upstream as these would dam rivers, even though these would not reduce the total flow of water into Pakistan. Indian officials told Smith that it was these objections that were delaying much needed power projects. Kashmiris object that the treaty ignores their right to cheap electricity, and has asked the Indian government for compensation. Currently, Kashmir gets only 12pc of the electricity generated by a federal agency, even though other states get to retain up to 50pc of the power generated by their rivers.

While Chief Minister Omar Abdullah calls the treaty “grossly unfair”, Zubair Ahmed Dar, a Kashmiri expert on the subject says both sides are using each other to deflect criticism for their own shortcomings and failures. Thus, Kashmiris are told that their problems are due to Pakistani intransigence, while farmers in Punjab and Sindh are told by Islamabad that their woes are caused by India.

If this vast and complex logjam of competing interests is ever to be broken, wisdom, trust and cooperation will be needed in New Delhi and Islamabad. However, judging by their past record, I am not holding my breath.

----------------