Unlock the editor’s summary for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is a professor of history and environmental studies at Yale University, and author of ‘The Burning Earth’
The Water Treaty of the Indo has resisted three wars among its signatories with nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan. But last week, following a brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, a city in Jammu and Kashmir instead of promoting India India.
When India was divided in 1947, the Indo basin was one of the most designed environments in the world. The partition cut an intricate irrigation system established for half a century. This division was so abrupt that perhaps only fiction could capture shock. In a short story written at that time, the famous Pakistani writer Saadat Hasan Manto represents a partner of the village sharing rumors that India was going to “close” the river. Your audience is incredulous. “You speak like a crazy woman,” they say: “Who can close a river? It’s a river, not a drain.”
The mantle’s midwife proved to be prophetic. As the conflict broke out in the territory in Kashmir Dispute, India, the upstream power, an improvised water exchange agreement ended and closed a key channel in 1948. Pakistan’s water supply dried. He took a formal agreement for 12 years, negotiated by the World Bank. Then, as now, Kashmir voices had no seat at the table.
The Treaty of the Water of the Indo granted the use of the three Eastern rivers, the Ravi, the Sutlej and the Beas, to India and the three Western rivers, the Indo himself, the Chenab and the Jhelum, to Pakistan downstream. Surprisingly, the agreement survived the Wars of India-Pakistan of 1965, 1971 and 1999. India threatened to cancel it in 2016, and again in 2019, after militant attacks in Kashmir.
Many of the assumptions of the treaty have been replaced. The demand for water has intensified since 1960. The population of India has tripled, and that of Pakistan has become more than five times. The treaty was signed before the intensive modernization of water from Indian agriculture. Above all, he assumed a long -term stability in the flow of the river that could not have anticipated climate change.
The calls to update the agreement are prior to the current crisis. The rapid fusion of the Himalaya glaciers is altering the hydrological cycle. A recent evaluation shows that the persistence of snow in the Himalayas Hindu Kush region is the lowest in 23 years. Scientists project a short -term increase in water flow, with a greater risk of flooding, followed by a drying of rivers as the annual thaw decreases. This raises a substantial risk for lives on both sides of the border.
In recent years there has been a surprising convergence in the way in which India and Pakistan have addressed water -related threats. The Supreme Court of India ruled last year that the unequal impact of climate change “violates the right to life and the right to equality.” Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, currently the president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, declared in 2022 that “climate change is perhaps the most serious threat to the fundamental rights of people in Pakistan.” Equitable water access is important for both countries to ensure that their citizens live safely and safely.
Pakistan has a lot to fear from a treaty suspension. Agriculture represents almost a quarter of GDP, and the country already faces water stress. India still does not have the infrastructure to divert a substantial volume of water, but the construction is underway in projects that could do so. The threat of India to retain water data would endanger the ability of Pakistani farmers to plan an increasingly erratic monsoon. The unbeated release of confiscated and silt water from Indian dams also comes with dangers: Pakistan is still marked by the devastating floods of 2022.
However, unilateral action is probable to strengthen the safety of the water of India in general. India itself is downstream of the source of some of its most important oriental rivers, where China, an ally of Pakistan, as well as Nepal and Bután, control the upper sections of the waters on which hundreds of millions of citizens of India depend.
Although India and Pakistan have few reasons to trust each other, with the military tensions that quickly intensify on the border, their ecological ties are more difficult to unleash than their historical ties. It is naive to think that the existential need for water could transcend the political conflict. Instead of arming the water, a renewed approach to jointly administer a vital shared resource could expand how India and Pakistan think about safety in the difficult days ahead.