Waters of arbitration

India has recently been escalating its aggressive behaviour against Pakistan on two counts. It has threatened to strike without warning at targets in Pakistan that it believes are responsible for 'terrorism' in Indian Occupied Kashmir. It has also decided to hold 'in abeyance' the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, governing river flows into Pakistan. Both these measures have no justification in international law and could, sooner or later, result in extended hostilities between the two nuclear countries.

It is insane to launch deadly missiles across international borders, even in response to an attack on innocent tourists, because of alleged Pakistani support for Kashmiris demanding freedom. Similarly, how can a signatory to the Indus Waters Treaty unilaterally withdraw from a binding international contract?

The frustration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the Pahalgam attack is evident because his macho image has been dented. Severe repression in Occupied Kashmir and even revoking Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian constitution in 2019 have failed to control or contain the spirit of freedom struggle. This is deeply embarrassing for him and is the primary determinant of his cross-border attacks.

However, what was most surprising following the four-day skirmish was not Modi's reckless behaviour but the timidity with which the top Indian military brass followed these politically motivated but inane policies. How would history have judged the pusillanimity of the senior military Indian commanders had atomic weapons been employed? There were other means of dealing with the matter, but toeing Modi's rash and dangerous escalation was not one. There is an urgent need now to review such scenarios in the future. Militaries today are armed not with bows and arrows but with weapons that could annihilate hundreds of millions with one strike.

Given some patience and deeper strategic vision, I believe a lasting understanding between India and Pakistan on Kashmir and the Indus basin rivers is still possible. To achieve durable peace, both countries would have to shed some historical narratives and social complexes and learn to live in peace, or else technology would deal a deadly blow. It is sad to note that despite his erudition, Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian prime minister who fathered the Kashmir dispute, lacked the prescience and common sense to understand the essence of the problem. If only he knew that the issue would remain explosive eighty years later he may have chosen a different path.

Today Kashmir remains a hot potato stuck in India's throat. An acceptable compromise could have been worked out even after tribesmen got involved in Kashmir to avenge the Jammu massacres of October-November 1947, which the Maharaja himself orchestrated. Nehru therefore, more than anyone else, is to blame for the continuing stalemate since then. The wars, the killings, the poverty and the misery of hundreds of millions of people of the subcontinent may have been avoided. The economic growth rate of both countries could have been up to three per cent higher without the Kashmir dispute and there may well have been lasting peace since.

Unfortunately, today, there are two basic truths inscribed in granite which cannot be ignored. First, India will not relinquish sovereignty over the Kashmir valley unless it is decisively defeated in battle. Importantly, by itself India does not have a knockout punch despite being much bigger in critical areas. India feels it must retain Kashmir so as not to create a precedent leading to further divisions with large groups in the north, south, east and west differently aligned in terms of ethnicity, religion, language and living standards. It is also true that Pakistan cannot withdraw from its long-held commitment to a plebiscite in different regions of Kashmir.

The second truth is that Pakistan cannot relinquish its water rights under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 because that would mean starvation and death. There is no way India could legitimately withdraw or alter the treaty's contents unilaterally, for that would mean war and under one apocalyptic scenario, two billion people of the planet could be affected. Who in their right mind would opt for this? The judges of the Court of Arbitration are not blind jurists who do not understand the law.

The very future of all international treaties and humankind itself cannot be put at stake to slake India's thirst. However, some minor environmental concerns could be mutually worked out, as in the case of the Kishenganga Arbitration, when the tribunal mandated nine cumecs flows during the winter months. Let us adopt this path for the next 80 years. China successfully waited a century for Hong Kong.

The government of Pakistan must now quickly approach the Arbitration Tribunal to deal with the river waters 'abeyance' idiocy and simultaneously seek international interest in lowering temperatures in the Kashmir valley. What is often forgotten is that Pakistan scored well in the Kishenganga Arbitration Award in 2013. Pakistan's legal right to contest the case in Occupied Kashmir was accepted, environmental flows were permitted downstream into the Neelum River, and some technical points were elucidated. True, India was permitted to proceed with the completion of the Kishenganga run-of-the-river project, but it must be noted that India started construction work in 2005, two years before Pakistan invited bids for the Neelum Jhelum project.

Pakistan alone should be blamed for this, as the Neelum Jhelum project was approved by the government's Central Development Working Party (CDWP) in 2002, while the physical works were started in January 2008 with a meagre seed money of Rs5 billion only.

It is said that ignoring critical moments in history has costs. The moment to act proactively on Pakistan's water rights, water conservation and development of additional water storage has arrived. Let us not rue any missed opportunity in the future.

The writer has served as the chief secretary of KP, Sindh, AJK, and GB, as well as the chairman of Wapda. He can be reached at:markhornine@gmail.com