Did Nehru squander away India’s interest by signing the Indus Waters Treaty and giving most of the water generated in India to Pakistan?

On 30 November 1960, Lok Sabha took up the Indus Waters Treaty for discussion. It was short but very intense. It revealed a deep divide between Jawaharlal Nehru’s government, which defended the treaty as pragmatic statesmanship, and a wide spectrum of MPs across parties, including congressmen, who felt India had sacrificed too much to Pakistan. The treaty had been signed without taking the Parliament or opposition leaders into confidence. By the time Parliament discussed the treaty, it was already ratified.

Ten members moved the motion. Just two hours were allotted. It was clear from the very beginning that Parliament had been given no role in shaping the treaty—only in reacting to a fait accompli. Almost every speaker condemned the treaty—calling it unfair, a sell-out, or even a “second partition". A young Atal Behari Vajpayee, the MP from Balrampur, framed it as a dangerous concession that wouldn’t bring lasting friendship. Vajpayee proved right as Gen. Ayub Khan attacked India in 1965 to annex Kashmir.

Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, the irrigation minister in Nehru government, tried to reassure the House: “The Prime Minister will speak." The stage was set. Then began the wave of criticism.

Harish Chandra Mathur, a congressman, spoke like a member of the Opposition. His anger reflected the feeling in Rajasthan, which relied heavily on Indus waters. Mathur called the treaty all to the disadvantage of India, all to the advantage of Pakistan. He said India was yielding too much: “Over-generosity at the cost of our own people is not statesmanship." Mathur read out headlines of newspapers across India that had condemned the treaty. He warned of perpetual annual losses of Rs 70-80 crore for his home state Rajasthan due to five million acre-feet of lost water. “Rajasthan has been very badly let down in this treaty," he said. He argued that India had surrendered step by step since 1948, and while Pakistan kept raising its demands, India yielded under pressure. The Congress MP went on to criticise Nehru for not linking the water settlement to Kashmir: “If they are assured of water, Kashmir should cease to be a problem. Has Kashmir ceased to be a problem," he asked.

Asoka Mehta, another congressman, delivered one of the sharpest speeches by comparing the treaty to a “second partition", saying, “We are reopening all the wounds of 1947…this is being done again with the signature of our Prime Minister". He added that after 12 years of talks, India had settled on terms “which cannot be justified as fair". Mehta made a sharp observation — that the treaty gave 80% of waters to Pakistan, only 20% to India — worse than the earlier 75:25 proposal. Criticising Nehru’s haste, Mehta said, “No government has the right to make mistakes twice. That is why the country is deeply and profoundly agitated". He said after the distribution of waters under this treaty Pakistan will permit very valuable water to flow into the seas. As Mehta said the debate itself was being rushed and termed just two hours as too little for a matter that has agitated the entire country.

Another congressman from Bengal, A.C. Guha, joined cause with him. Guha focused on the economic and financial imbalance — saying India had 26 million acres in the Indus basin, but only 19% irrigated, while Pakistan’s 39 million acres were 54% irrigated. “By land share, India should have received 40% of waters. Instead, it got only 20%. Pakistan received Rs 400+ crore in grants, India just Rs 27 crore in loans," Guha said. He added that “the more regrettable thing is that waters which India would need badly would be allowed to flow into the sea unutilised and yet we shall be denied the opportunity of developing our own land with that water". He also criticised paying Rs 83 crore in sterling to Pakistan when India faced a foreign exchange crisis. He termed it “the height of folly". He castigated Nehru further, saying whenever we negotiate with Pakistan, our interests are sacrificed to placate them.

These congress leaders were side-lined in congress for speaking against PM Nehru.

A young AB Vajpayee, still in his early 30s, gave a sharp, pointed intervention, highlighting how government had earlier announced stoppage of water to Pakistan by 1962, yet now it was conceding permanent rights. “Either that announcement was wrong, or this treaty is wrong," Vajpayee said. He quoted Pakistan President Ayub Khan claiming India had conceded joint control of rivers: “Joint control comprehends joint possession," Vajpayee warned. “Parliament is not taken into confidence when such agreements were done," he said. He also questioned Nehru’s motives: “Why did Nehru go so far? This is not the way to build harmony." Vajpayee said good relations can only be built on justice, not appeasement and criticised the government for bypassing Parliament on issues of security and economy. Vajpayee concluded that the treaty was “not in the interest of India", and that it would not bring lasting friendship.

Finally, Nehru rose to speak. His tone was weary, almost depressed, but firm as he called it a “good treaty for India". Nehru rejected the “second partition" claim of his fellow Congressmen as “loose, meaningless language" and asked: “Partition of what? A pailful of water?" Nehru also insisted that such international treaties could not be managed by constant parliamentary approval. “There were mountains of papers, a dozen approaches, ten years of struggle. We had to take a call,” Nehru argued.

He also justified that India had to pay Pakistan to replace lost waters. “We purchased a settlement, we purchased peace," Nehru said, admitting Pakistan had initially demanded Rs 300 crore, but India had settled for Rs 83 crore. Nehru also warned that rejecting the treaty would have turned West Punjab into a wilderness, destabilising the subcontinent. He appealed for a broader vision: “When we deal with mighty things like relations between nations, let us not adopt a narrow approach."

It is clear now that Nehru didn’t purchased peace. This can be called ‘water chori’ by Nehru. By suspending the IWT, PM Modi has a better change to purchase peace with Pakistan.

Fast forward to June 2024 when Delhi CM Atishi Marlena sat on dharna as the capital was reeling under water shortage. AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal blamed Haryana for the crisis and made wild claim that Haryana poisoned Yamuna water! This water crisis problem during summer days can be solved by bringing western Indus river waters to Delhi, Rajasthan and beyond. This is what Urban Development minister Manohar Lal Khattar has said recently. If this transformation may happen or not in a reasonable time, one thing is sure that this will bring peace with hostile Pakistan. Generosity with Pakistan will never work but an aggressive posture by Modi government will work for India.

Picture source: Google / Respective rightful owner

IWT Was Signed Without Parliament Nod: Congress, Vajpayee Accused Nehru Of Sell-Out | Exclusive
Jawaharlal Nehru, faced with severe opposition in Parliament during debate on IWT in 1960, said rejecting the treaty would have turned West Punjab (Pakistan) into a wilderness
Nehru signed IWT without consulting Parliament: Nadda | India News - Times of India
India News: BJP president JP Nadda criticized the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, calling it a major blunder by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Nadda claimed Nehr
Khattar: Water Saved from Indus Treaty Suspension to Reach Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan in 1.5 Years
Union Minister Manohar Lal Khattar said water diverted from Pakistan under the suspended Indus Waters Treaty will be supplied to Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan within 18 months.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Will Sonia Gandhi resign from her post in the Congress Party?

Don't vote me if I don't clean Yamuna, will Kejriwal honor this commitment? Why don’t we have a gutsy politician like Kejriwal in India?

Did Jawaharlal Nehru practice anti-Hindu sentiments?