Recent willingness shown by India to participate in the annual meeting of the permanent Indus Waters Commission scheduled to be held in Pakistan this month is a welcome sign that denotes a mutual commitment to uphold an agreement, which has braved periods of massive ruptures in bilateral ties. Largely considered one of the greatest success stories of water diplomacy, the 1960 World Bank-mediated Indus Waters Treaty faced a significant threat last September in the wake of a terrorist attack on an army camp in Uri when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi resorted to its unprecedented review. Amid his aggressive rhetoric that “blood and water” cannot flow together, and much-touted considerations of any and all retaliatory measures that claimed to make full use of water legally belonging to India, Modi’s war-hysteria led many to fear a possible suspension in bilateral ties. As for Pakistan, showing unrelenting persistence to maintain the decades-old tradition of commissioners meeting every year despite its strong reservations over constructions of new dams by India along the Indus river system is a remarkable testament to its resolve to establish normalcy in the region.
No matter how immaturely both countries might have acted — invoking the treaty in favour of a neutral arbitrator in the case of Pakistan or India’s much-touted threat to withdraw from the treaty altogether — during the latest strain the highly volatile framework of their ties, their eventual wisdom should be highly appreciated. More than a mere water agreement, Indus Water Treaty is rightfully honoured as a landmark reminder of the historic cooperation that has stood the test of time and war. The fact that Pakistan, as well as India, have now come to realise that the treaty should neither be suspended nor ignored, is being seen by many as a lowering of rhetoric. Even though officials from both countries are claiming the meeting to only be a “technical” development with India insisting that the commissioner’s work cannot “amount to talks” between governments, a new breakthrough in an otherwise suspended conversation would, hopefully, soon translate into a resumption of the dialogue process.
