JK News Today Commentary
The announcement by India on Wednesday to keep the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 in abeyance with immediate effect until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support to cross-border terrorism , is essentially meant to hold the neighbouring country accountable for its acts of terrorism that it stages on the Indian soil. It also offers an opportunity to reform its behaviour and look at the larger interests of its people – water or love for guns and terrorism .
Pakistan needs IWT more than IMF loans to maintain its financial health. As without the water of the Indian rivers flowing to it, the neighbouring country will be tottering in all its forms and manifestations .At the moment , it is a failed state , but without the Indian river waters , it will cease to exist as a state .
The GoI announced this measure in the wake of April 22 , 2025 terror attack on the tourists in Pahalgam to underscore its point that it would not tolerate terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of the country , Pakistan will have to mend its ways. This decision, though taken against the backdrop of the massacre of 28 tourists in Barsaran , Pahalgam, , was waiting to happen . India had been warning Pakistan against continuation of cross-border terrorism, but Pakistan paid no heed .
A look through the historical perspective , Pakistan forced India’s hands to do so. All the warnings served to Islamabad through bilateral dialogues and in the nation’s discourse on terrorism , demanded that it should halt its terror machinery and exporting terror to India . And, Pakistan’s response was always in denial .
Primarily, two issues are inter-connected in this decision . Pakistan had beseeched India for the water treaty to ensure irrigation of its fields and to run its hydro-electric projects for more than 13 years before this treaty was signed in 1960. In fact , at the time of the signing of the Treaty , the Indian government failed to take a guarantee from World Bank that brokered the Treaty that it should return the areas under its illegal occupation and renounce claims on J&K once and for all . This was certainly a Himalayan blunder on the part of the Indian leadership of the day not to have insisted on this .
Second , Pakistan drew maximum advantage of the Treaty . It was given control over the waters of three western rivers , flowing through Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh – Indus , Jhelum and Chenab , while it would get all the water flowing down from the three eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej – after all the use by India.
The entire Indus Water system of the three eastern rivers have mean annual flow of 41 billion m3 ( 33 million acre feet) , while that of the western rivers is 99 billion m3 . In mathematical terns , Pakistan got 70 per cent and India had to remain satisfied with 30 per cent.
As a bigger beneficiary of the Treaty, Pakistan should have expressed its gratitude to India for saving its agriculture, irrigation and drinking water needs , but it did the reverse . It manufactured factories of war and terrorism, and unleashed all these atrocities on India, particularly Jammu and Kashmir . The successive governments in India tolerated all the terrorism and atrocities , lost its soldiers and civilians in wars and a long and continuing spell of cross-border terrorism . The Modi government, however , had warned Pakistan way back in 2016 that the Treaty and India’s commitments should not be taken for granted , but still it did not shut waters to Pakistan on the humanitarian ground.
There would be arguments that India cannot take this step as the World Bank is involved in this , and no security provisions were added to the Treaty at the time of its signing in Karachi between Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Air Marshall Ayub Khan in Karachi on September 19, 1960 . That being true, but the fact remains that the treaty did not give Pakistan right to bleed India , kill tourists in meadows . That certainly is unacceptable . The terms of the treaty should have been reviewed from time to time . those who drafted the treaty were no friends of India . It is now becoming increasingly clear.
Now, what objection should Pakistan have in checking and curbing cross-border terrorism . It will not have, because it is in denial mode ; it has always been rejecting this claiming that it is not responsible for acts o violence in Kashmir as it is indigenous struggle . If this had been the indigenous project, why would the entire Kashmir be on streets , protesting against the massacre of tourists in Pahalgam . Pakistan should stop this claptrap. That it is not involved . And,, it should read its own joint statement of January 6, 2004 issued in Islamabad , in which it is clearly written :” Prime Minister Vajpayee said that in order to take forward and sustain the dialogue process, violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented. President Musharraf reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner.”
It’s time for Pakistan to reflect on the situation and weigh what is good for it-cross-border terrorism or sustenance and survival of its people . The choice lies entirely with Pakistan.
