By Uzma Ehtasham
In recent months, tensions between India and Pakistan have taken on a dimension that extends beyond the usual political and military rhetoric, entering a domain that strikes at the very lifeblood of both nations: water. The dispute over the Indus River basin, which sustains millions of lives and underpins agricultural economies across the subcontinent, has now become a focal point for what Islamabad describes as a deliberate campaign of “hydraulic aggression” by New Delhi. The most recent flashpoint is a hydropower project on the Chenab River, a development that Pakistan warns could have profound downstream implications for its water security.
At a routine press briefing, Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesperson, Tahir Hussain Inderabi, underlined the absence of any formal notification from India regarding this project. While media reports have circulated widely about the construction, India has yet to furnish detailed project documents as mandated under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. This accord, a cornerstone of South Asian water diplomacy, obliges both nations to consult and exchange information on any projects that could influence river flows, particularly those that have the potential to affect downstream users. In theory, such procedures are meant to prevent misunderstandings, manage shared resources responsibly, and avert conflicts that could escalate along an already sensitive border.
Yet, the reality, as Islamabad points out, has often fallen short of the treaty’s spirit. India’s persistent reluctance to share project details has effectively stalled meaningful consultation, even as construction proceeds, leaving Pakistan and international observers with little more than public statements and speculation. Such unilateral action, according to Pakistani officials, not only breaches the letter of the treaty but also undermines trust, creating an environment where routine water management can no longer be separated from geopolitical rivalry.
Water, in this context, is not merely a resource; it is a strategic instrument. The Indus River system is a lifeline for Pakistan, supporting both its food security and its economic stability. Any significant reduction or disruption in river flows has the potential to impact agriculture, energy production, and human livelihoods on a massive scale. When upstream projects proceed without consultation, the risk is not abstract: it becomes a tangible threat to millions who rely on predictable water access for survival. Observers in Islamabad argue that such moves are not accidental but form part of a broader strategy of assertiveness that leverages natural resources as instruments of statecraft.
Internationally, these developments have not gone unnoticed. Analysts and environmental monitoring bodies have flagged the risks associated with uncoordinated water management in transboundary river basins, yet the mechanisms for enforcing compliance remain limited. The Indus Waters Treaty itself names the World Bank as a mediator in disputes, but practical intervention has historically been modest, often restricted to diplomatic exhortation rather than substantive enforcement. This gap between obligation and accountability highlights a broader challenge in international water governance: agreements are only as effective as the willingness of parties to honor them, and the presence of external oversight, while valuable, cannot substitute for genuine cooperation.
The United States, with its global influence and historical engagement in South Asia, has a particularly relevant role. Washington has long positioned itself as a promoter of stability and dialogue in the region, and yet, when tensions flare over shared rivers, its response has been largely muted. For analysts, this absence underscores a paradox: while South Asia remains a theatre of strategic interest, issues such as water security often fail to command the urgent attention they deserve, despite the potential for localized disputes to cascade into broader regional crises. By signaling clearly that unilateral water actions are unacceptable and encouraging adherence to established treaties, the United States and other global stakeholders could help reinforce norms that are critical to long-term stability.
The stakes are considerable. Beyond the immediate hydrological concerns, disputes over water intersect with wider geopolitical dynamics, including border security, trade relations, and energy cooperation. The potential for miscalculation is ever-present, particularly in an environment where rhetoric can escalate faster than dialogue. In this context, India’s apparent intransigence—a refusal, in Islamabad’s view, to fully engage in treaty-mandated consultations—serves to exacerbate mistrust, making it increasingly difficult to separate environmental management from political confrontation.
For Pakistan, the issue is not simply a matter of diplomatic protest; it is a strategic imperative. Ensuring access to the Chenab and other rivers is integral not only to sustaining agriculture and hydroelectric power but also to maintaining broader national resilience. Unchecked upstream interventions could set a precedent that normalizes unilateral actions in shared river basins, eroding the very frameworks designed to prevent conflict. The challenge is therefore twofold: to secure compliance with existing agreements and to build mechanisms that make transboundary cooperation more robust in the face of political pressures.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
