VikasRaina wrote:I can understand the reason why Pakistan signed IWT as they had no other option. What I fail to understand is why did India go out of the way to sign IWT. Pakis got 3 rivers for themselves (inspite of crying hoarse over unjust treaty and how they were duped and how they should nuke India) but what on earth did India achieve by giving away water of these 3 rivers to Pakistan under IWT.
Was it just WKK state of Indian mind at that time or did India get something in return for this deal,
My reading of what led to India signing the IWT is like this:
At the time of the Partition, India was faced with three challenges in the East Punjab area and its immediate neighbourhood. One was that a large influx of hard-working Punjabis had moved into that area and they needed to be gainfully employed. Luckily for India, these were the same people who had developed the canal colonies of West Punjab and the Sind. All that they needed was water. Secondly, most of that area was what was known during the British period as 'Crown Waste Land' and had under-developed or even no irrigation facilities and so irrigation facilities needed to be built up rather quickly. Thirdly, India had suddenly lost a huge and fertile bread-basket to Pakistan and this needed to be compensated for.
Now, some facts. Forty six million people were living in the Indus basin prior to Partition; 21 million in the part that came to independent India and 25 million in the area that went to Pakistan. The culturable, irrigable land in the basin was 65 million acres, of which 26 million acres remained in India and 39 million acres went to Pakistan.
Out of the 28 million acres under irrigation at the time of Partition, only 5 million acres were left in India. In other words,
of the 26 million acres of cultivable land of the basin that came to India, only 5 million acres (that is less than one-fifth) were irrigated land. These 28 million acres of irrigated land were using some 75 MAF of the Indus system waters, of which as of 1947, about 66 MAF were used in Pakistan canals and 9 MAF in the Indian canals. {These are taken from a book by Shri R. Rangachari on the Bhakra Nangal project.}
Now, if we look at the Indian demand at the IWT time, we demanded all the flows of the Eastern Rivers plus 7% of the Western Rivers which would have met the irrigation needs of the 26 million acres on the Indian side. As early as 1948, India had earnestly started to plan the massive Bhakra project on the Sutlej in the then Princely State of Bisalspur. Similarly, the Harike headworks, again on the Sutlej, was needed to be built near Ferozepur on the Indo-Pak border. India was thus concentrating on the so-called 'Eastern' rivers. On the other hand, the 'Western' rivers were more difficult to harness in J&K and cultivable lands were also practically non-existent.
It is my conclusion that the foremost thought in the minds of the GoI at that time was perhaps developing irrigation for the remaining 21 million acres of un-irrigated land that was left with India after Partition and to protect the water supply for the existing 5 million acres. So, Indian demand was only to meet this requirement (plus a little more) and perhaps nobody thought of carting these waters over long distances to other parched lands. It was either thought infeasible technically or uneconomical or such a thought never crossed their minds at that time.
VikasRaina wrote:Moreover why suddenly IWT is being touted as future root of all troubles between India and TSP. What has changed suddenly that not Kashmir but IWT has become jugular vein for mango Paki , terrorist Paki and Rape Paki.
IMO, there are multiple winners in such a stand by Pakistan now. At least that is what it believes in. The Kashmir situation is reaching a 'solution' stage because of the pressure from the US and some Western countries. There have been enough indications to that, from Musharraf, from Kasuri (ex FM of TSP) and some other Indian leaders as well. That will deprive Pakistan, or at least blunt it, of one stick to beat India with. It needs something else as potent as 'territory' to maintain the unrelenting hostility with the kafir. 'Water' is a fabulous alternative. May be even more capable of raising the hatred for India among the Pakistanis than purely territory. It will also fudge the very threatening and explosive water issues within Pakistan itself. Since the 1960s, when IWT was signed, India has been rather meek in dealing with Pakistan, especially on water issues. We went beyond the dictates of IWT to please Pakistan. This is what Pakistan is currently referring to as 'the spirit of the Treaty'. We conceded to Pakistani demands and either designed waterworks that allayed their
fears and disadvantaged India or even gave up very beneficial projects. India's new-found assertive attitude (dictated by compulsions) as far as building hydroelectric projects on these rivers, especially after the vindication of its technical stand in Baglihar, has therefore come very handy for Pakistan to sow seeds of suspicion in the minds of Pakistanis. By constantly accusing India and putting her on the defensive, Pakistan also hopes to derive diplomatic advantage. It also plays to the Pakistani galleries and gives a handle to the jihadists to attack India, which cannot be faulted with as water is the lifeline.