The BJP President and Union Health Minister JP Nadda started the new week on August 18 by going after then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on the signing of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in September 1960. He said that this lopsided Treaty was criticised by many MPs during a parliamentary debate in November, two months after its signing. Nadda said that most parliamentarians who took Nehru to task for being too generous towards Pakistan and thus bartering away India’s interests were Congress members.
Indeed, a limited debate had taken place on the Treaty in Parliament on November 30, 1960, and many MPs spoke on the issue. Other than Union Irrigation Minister Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, nobody spoke in favour of the Treaty. As expected, Nehru had defended his government’s action by saying that “we purchased a settlement, if you like; we purchased peace to that extent and it is good for both countries”. However, this assertion of buying peace was not borne out by the subsequent events that unfolded over years, decades and during the last 65 years since the Treaty has been signed.
In his speech, late Atal Behari Vajpayee, who was then Lok Sabha MP from Balrampur in UP, said: “After the signing of this Treaty, Pakistan President has said that joint inspection means joint control and joint control means joint possession. He says,`By accepting the procedure for joint inspection of the river courses, India has, by implication, conceded the principle of joint control extending to the upper reaches of Chenab and Jhelum, and joint control comprehends joint possession.
Vajpayee cautioned that this interpretation of the Treaty, as explained by President Ayub Khan, will have very dangerous portents for India. He said that under no international law, it is incumbent upon India to provide that much of water to Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan does not have the capacity to utilise that much water as has been allocated to it. If the government were more careful, and negotiated better, Pakistan sure could have been asked to agree to far lesser water of the Indus basin rivers.
“The Treaty on river waters is not in Indian interests and we have tried to give too much to Pakistan with the false hope of earning its friendship. Despite this very high price paid by us, we cannot be sure that Pakistan will behave in a friendly manner.
Congress MPs from Punjab and Rajasthan, Iqbal Singh and H.C. Mathur termed the Treaty as something that was distinctly disadvantageous to India. In their statements, these Congress MPs asserted that both their home states “had been badly let down”. Ashok Guha, another Congress MP, lamented that interests of India had been sacrificed to placate Pakistan, and this generosity was sure to bring no good results.
Harishchandra Mathur, who represented Pali Lok Sabha segment, said: “ … the facts of the case before us give us an inevitable feeling that this Treaty is all to the disadvantage of this country. The progress and development programmes will be retarded and it is all to the advantage of Pakistan. Rajasthan has been badly let down in this Treaty.
He added: “It is not only by being overgenerous that you can create a friendly feeling. You must be a strong and firm government. You must create a feeling on that side that all reasonable demands would be considered but nothing beyond reasonable demands would be considered.
At another point during his speech, Mathur said: “What goodwill has come out of the friendship we have generated? Immediately after the Treaty was signed, we find the President of Pakistan talking about the physical possession of the upper reaches of these rivers (read the Western Rivers). It is most disappointing if we have generated this sort of goodwill.
Another MP, Ashok Mehta said: “Every concession becomes a thin end of the wedge. … the Kashmir dispute, instead of getting settled, instead of the solution of the canal waters problem leading us, helping us towards easing the tensions in the area, have aggravated the situation.
Mehta was very harsh during his speech towards the government action and said: “It is a kind of Second Partition which we are experiencing. It is a kind of reopening of all the wounds that we had hoped had started healing. This is being done again with the signature of our Honourable Prime Minister. This had happened in 1947 with regard to Partition without understanding, realising and making sure that it will not lead to carnage all sides.
Another parliamentarian, AC Guha, citing figures regarding irrigable land in India, said: “… in the Indus basin, on the basis of land which India possesses, India should have got at least 40 per cent of the waters of the Indus basin. But under the Treaty, only 20 per cent of the Indus basin water will flow into India and 80 per cent into Pakistan. This is a serious mistake in the agreement. There is a relevant question to ask, namely, whether Pakistan will need that 80 per cent water or whether Pakistan will have the capacity to utilise that 80 per cent water.
Brajraj Singh also criticised the Treaty and said: “ … I want that not only with Pakistan, India should have good relations with all countries across the world. However, when we talk of goodwill and friendship, we must remember that these cannot be and must not be achieved by selling one’s honour. I feel that in signing of this Treaty, honour and prestige of the country have been lowered. After all these sacrifices, I want to ask one question here, after keeping millions of Indians hungry, is there any guarantee that Pakistan will behave in a friendly manner? No, I believe that our hopes will change into a sense of betrayal and despondency when Pakistan behaves in an inimical manner.
A parliamentarian from Odisha, Surendra Mohanty, who represented Dhenkanal Lok Sabha segment, said: “Time being short, let me tell him (read Nehru) that it (Treaty) has acted against the interests of our country. The Rajasthan Canal System will starve for water. I am told that from 1961, some water will be available for Kharif crops but Rabi crops water can be had only after 1973. You are also going to starve the plains of Himachal Pradesh which needed water. This is the Treaty of surrender which we could have well resisted and I am sorry that the Prime Minister put his signature on it.
Comments