ISLAMABAD: A leading water expert from India has labeled the Modi administration’s strategy to cut off water supplies to Pakistan as a misguided endeavor. According to him, nullifying the Indus Waters Treaty would only heighten tensions between the two countries, as reported by The News.
He emphasized that India would need an additional 30 to 50 years to build the infrastructure necessary to store water that currently flows to Pakistan.
Iftikhar A. Drabu, a civil engineer with over 15 years of experience in the hydropower sector across India and China, also served as a consultant for major international firms. He expressed his concerns in an essay published by the Observer Research Foundation, a well-respected think tank based in New Delhi.
“Aside from being blamed for escalating animosity, India won’t gain anything in the immediate future,” Drabu stated in his essay’s conclusion, labeling any effort to modify the Treaty as a “foolhardy venture.”
Drabu elaborated that halting the flow of water would require either the construction of storage facilities or diversion of rivers—both of which he considers unfeasible.
The three principal rivers—Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum—contribute to 80% (117 billion cubic meters) of the total water reaching Pakistan. This volume is sufficient to flood approximately 120,000 square kilometers to a depth of one meter each year.
“In terms of reservoir capacity, this amount of water could cover the entire Kashmir Valley to a depth of seven meters annually,” he added. “To capture such an enormous volume, India would need 30 reservoirs the size of the Tehri Dam—the tallest dam in India. Where would they find the land required for these constructions?”
Pointing out the timeline, Drabu noted that creating one dam comparable to Tehri takes close to a decade. Even if construction on 30 such dams were to start immediately, the earliest water accumulation would not happen before 2030.
“Until then, Pakistan will keep receiving its full water supply. Every subsequent year, we would require 30 new massive reservoirs to effectively block the western rivers, which is utterly unrealistic,” he argued.
Drabu dismisses the notion of river diversion as equally absurd. Diverting even a single river would require constructing an artificial waterway that stretches hundreds of kilometers, presenting significant design, construction, and maintenance challenges. “Such a project would demand investments amounting to trillions of rupees and take decades to finalize,” he noted.
In both cases—whether through storage or diversion—Drabu asserted that there would be no significant effects on Pakistan in the next 30 to 50 years. “It goes without saying that the environmental ramifications of either method would be disastrous,” he warned.
To sum up, Drabu remarked that even if India were to terminate the Indus Waters Treaty today, there would be no immediate impact on Pakistan’s water supply. “Water will keep flowing to Pakistan uninterrupted until India finishes these massive projects,” he emphasized.
However, he cautioned that nullification would carry considerable political implications. “Given that the Indus Basin supports 90% of Pakistan’s agriculture and provides employment for over 40% of its population, any attempt by India to halt water flows would be viewed by the Pakistani public as an effort to cripple their nation,” he cautioned.
“This would generate fear and uncertainty without causing a genuine water shortage, merely empowering the more aggressive factions in Pakistan who wish to see relations worsen,” he explained. “Such actions would play into their agenda, creating a perfect opportunity to escalate tensions between the two countries,” Drabu concluded.
