A prominent Indian water expert has deemed the Modi government’s plan to halt water flows to Pakistan as a futile exercise, cautioning that abrogating the Indus Waters Treaty would only exacerbate tensions between the two nations, as reported by The News.
He emphasized that India would require an additional 30 to 50 years to develop the necessary infrastructure to store the water currently flowing to Pakistan.
Iftikhar A. Drabu, a civil engineer with over 15 years of experience in the hydro sector in India and China, and a former consultant to leading international firms, expressed his views in an essay published by the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, a respected think tank.
“Other than being held responsible for causing further bitterness… India will not gain anything for now,” Drabu wrote in his essay’s conclusion, characterizing any attempt to tamper with the Treaty as a “misadventure.”
Drabu explained that stopping the water flow could only be achieved by either storing or diverting the rivers — both of which he argued are impractical.
The three western rivers — Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum — account for 80 percent (117 billion cubic meters) of the total water flow to Pakistan. This volume, he pointed out, is sufficient to inundate nearly 120,000 square kilometers to a depth of one meter annually.
“If we consider this in terms of reservoir capacity, the annual water volume could flood the entire Kashmir Valley to a depth of seven meters,” he noted. “To store such an immense quantity, India would need 30 reservoirs the size of the Tehri Dam — the tallest dam in India. Where would we find such vast land areas to build them?”
Highlighting the timeline, Drabu added that constructing a single Tehri-sized dam takes nearly a decade. Even if construction on 30 such dams commenced immediately, the first water impoundment wouldn’t occur until 2030.
“Until then, Pakistan would continue to receive the full water flow. And each year thereafter, we would require 30 new massive reservoirs to consistently block the western rivers — an utterly impractical proposition,” he argued.
Regarding river diversion, Drabu described the idea as equally “preposterous.” Diverting even one of the three rivers would necessitate constructing an artificial river spanning hundreds of kilometers, posing significant challenges in design, construction, and maintenance. “Such a project would require investments of several lakh crores of rupees, the acquisition of thousands of hectares of land, and decades to complete,” he observed.
In either scenario — storage or diversion — Pakistan would not experience any tangible impact for the next 30 to 50 years, Drabu pointed out. “Needless to mention, the environmental consequences of either approach would be catastrophic,” he warned.
Summing up, Drabu stated that even if India were to abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty today, it would have no immediate effect on Pakistan’s water supply. “The flow of water to Pakistan would continue uninterrupted until India completes these colossal projects,” he stressed.
However, Drabu cautioned that abrogation would carry significant political consequences. “With the Indus Basin supporting 90% of Pakistan’s agriculture and employing over 40% of its population, any Indian move to halt water flows would be perceived by the common man in Pakistan as an attempt to strangle his country,” he warned.
“It would arouse fear and uncertainty without causing any real water shortage — only providing ammunition to hawkish elements in Pakistan who seek deterioration in bilateral relations,” he explained. “Such a move would serve their agenda, offering a godsend opportunity to further inflame tensions between the two countries,” Drabu concluded.
