Instead of knee-jerk reactions and belligerent talk of war, we need to devise and calibrate our response carefully. It is imperative to strengthen internal security through inter-agency coordination, intelligence gathering and analysis. The Pulwama tragedy was a well-orchestrated operation, certainly not the handiwork of a single 20- year-school dropout. A well-funded organization like Jaish-e- Muhammed was behind its planning, coordination and execution, and our intelligence had failed to detect it. We need to analyse the reasons for this failure and learn from this to prepare our forces to devise an appropriate strategy to face such threats in future.

A response is definitely called for, but the Prime Minister has been wise enough to leave it to the Army which knows best how, when and in what manner to retaliate. As in the surgical strike case, we should depend on the army, while knowing fully well that such responses, howsoever tough and devastating, will have little bearing on the behaviour of terrorists, their handlers or the “Deep State” of the Pakistani Army and ISI, especially when after the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, the terrorists engaged in that frontier would be deflected towards Kashmir with their support of the Deep State. It would be almost a return to 1989 when after the Soviet withdrawal, the Mujahideen fighters from Afghanistan had injected new blood into the nascent Kashmir insurgency. We must think of other, more effective measures to neutralize them. Indeed, there are several options.

Advertisement

There is the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) between India and Pakistan, signed in 1960 and brokered by the World Bank. IWT divides the six major rivers of the Indus basin between India and Pakistan, with three western rivers ~ Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum ~ being allocated to Pakistan and the three eastern ones ~ Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas ~ to India. Pakistan receives most of its waters from the Indus basin, while the treaty gives India the right to use only 20 per cent of the three western rivers. India does not utilise its full share and the unutilised part flows to Pakistan for the benefit of its farmers. As per IWT, India can establish “run-of-the-river” power projects with limited reservoir capacity and flow control needed for feasible power generation. Availing this provision, India has embarked on several run-of-theriver projects within its 20 per cent quota. India has so far operationalized 390 MW Dulhasti Hydroelectric Project on river Chanda, a tributary of Chenab, 690 MW Salal Hydroelectric Project on Chenab, 720 MW Uri-I & II Hydroelectric Projects on Jhelum, 330 MW Kishanganga Project on Kishanganga, a tributary of Jhelum and a few other minor projects like the 120 MW Sewa II, 45 MW Nimmo Bazgo and 44 MW Chutak. Work is going on in Baglihar Project on Chenab, 1000 MW Pakal Dul Dam on Marusadar river, a tributary of Chenab, 1200 MW Bursar Dam, also on Marusudar, 850 MW Ratle Hydroelectric Plant and 1856 MW Sawalkot Project on Chenab. Survey and investigation work is on for the proposed 800 MW Bursar Dam Project, also on Marusudar. Pakistan has been objecting to each of these projects and has taken India to the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague on Kishanganga and Ratle projects, which had ruled in India’s favour. Its current focus is on India’s 1000 MW Pakal Dul project on Marusadar in Kishtwar district, and 48 MW Lower Kalnai Hydropower Project, on Lower Kalnai Nalla, another tributary of Chenab in Doda district.

Pakistan’s water issues with India are as important as Kashmir, and India can leverage this in fighting the terror-promoting state. Pakistan’s water intensity rate ~ the amount of water used per unit of GDP ~ is the world’s highest. It is on the brink of a water disaster, with availability likely to plunge to 800 cubic meters per capita annually by 2020 from the current level of around 1,000 cubic meters, unveiling almost a drought-like situation.

Earlier, in 1987, India had unilaterally suspended its proposed Tulbul navigation Project ~ a 439-feet-long, 40-feet-wide barrage on the Jhelum for facilitating transport from Srinagar and Baramulla on Pakistani objections. IWT has survived three wars between the two countries during the lpst 58 years, while disputes were settled within its framework. But after the Uri incident in which 18 Indian soldiers were killed by cross-border terrorists in September 2016, there was a change in India’s stance, when Prime Minister Modi had said that “Blood and Water cannot flow simultaneously”. It is now time to assert this principle aggressively. All ongoing projects must be expedited and Tulbul project should be revived. In fact, in May 2018, Modi laid the foundation for the Pakal Dul project to be completed within 66 months.

IWT does not allow any party to walk out of the treaty, which can be abrogated unilaterally by India only at the risk of incurring international censure, besides scepticism from Nepal and Bangladesh with which India shares similar treaties. Being a responsible country, India cannot dishonor international bilateral agreements. But even without violating the treaty, India can create enormous problems for Pakistan just by making full use of its water as per the treaty for irrigation, storage and electricity.

Of course, the most potent weapon will be an economic war. No country or transnational company can ignore the vast Indian market and the country’s higher growth and growing prosperity of India. Countries and companies willing to business with India can be given the option to choose between India and Pakistan. About 100 multinational companies are currently operating within Pakistan, and many of them are also engaged in busines in India, notably banks, mobile manufacturers and operators, FMCG, automobile, pharmaceutical, construction, engineering and oil companies, airliners, etc. Even if a few of these enterprises wind up in Pakistan, the jobless will exert sufficient pressure on their State and the Army to change course.

Pakistan’s all-weather friend, China, is trying to block international efforts to list Masood Azhar, the chief perpetrator of the Pulwama attack, as an international terrorist. If China shows such gross insensitivity to our concerns, we too need not be mindful of Chinese sensitivities in Taiwan or Tibet, and may even take similar economic measures. After Doklam, India has the confidence to up the ante against China. Wars need not be fought militarily, but as Machiavelli had said in Prince, “there is no avoiding war; it can be postponed only to the advantage of others.” We should rather extract whatever advantage we can from every situation.

India has to fight its battle alone, but we must isolate Pakistan internationally, as the Government has stated after Pulwama. Perhaps more aggression is needed towards this end, to make Pakistan a pariah within the international community that is disgusted with such mindless violence.

Diplomatic efforts have already yielded significant successes, with the USA and many other countries expressing strong support for India and its right to for self-defence (aka retaliatory strikes) while condemning the incident. Pakistan can be completely isolated within the international community, in trade and commerce, in international fora and also in sports.

Civil society in Pakistan is equally disgusted with the state’s relentless sponsorship of terror, but unfortunately their feeble voice is drowned by the clamour for jihad by the Islamic fundamentalists who enjoy the support of the deep state. International isolation will strengthen the voice of civil society and may even be a game-changer. In its sponsoring of terror, Pakistan may be an evil state, but Pakistanis are certainly not evil and we should ensure their support in fighting this menace. Unless forced from within, the Pakistani state is unlikely to change its attitude. There cannot be a “final war” to end all wars.

(Concluded)

(The writer is a commentator. Views expressed are personal)