The IRSA Act, Indus River, and Sindh’s Survival: A Looming Crisis
- Water Scarcity and Agriculture: Sindh heavily relies on the Indus River for agriculture, using 92% of its water for farming, with 77% of its economy tied to irrigated lands. The construction of six new canals threatens this vital resource, exacerbating existing water shortages.
- Economic and Social Impact: With 37% of Sindh's rural population below the poverty line, reduced water availability could devastate livelihoods, worsen poverty, and leave millions of acres uncultivated.
- Potential for Conflict: The canal project risks creating unrest among Sindh's population, who see it as a threat to their survival. Critics urge the government to reconsider the project to avoid rebellion and ensure equitable resource distribution.
The Federal Government’s plan to amend the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) Act and construct six additional canals over the Indus River in Punjab has sparked heated debate and widespread concerns, particularly among the people of Sindh. Many see this development as directly threatening Sindh’s survival, declaring, “We will not permit any theft of Sindh’s water.” Their concerns are not unfounded, as the construction of more canals threatens the very existence of the Indus River and, by extension, the livelihood and economy of Sindh’s people.
The Indus River is the lifeline of Sindh. It supports the province’s agriculture, which forms the backbone of its economy. According to the World Bank Group’s fact sheet on Sindh’s water and agriculture transformation project, 77% of Sindh’s agricultural land is irrigated, and agriculture consumes 92% of its water resources. Without sufficient water, Sindh’s already fragile economy faces an existential threat. This makes the government’s proposed plan to amend the IRSA Act and build six new canals akin to a slow poison, as it systematically erodes Sindh’s access to water, further exacerbating poverty and resource scarcity.
Water scarcity is not a new challenge for Sindh, but the situation has grown dire in recent years. The summer months, in particular, bring acute shortages, leaving vast tracts of agricultural land barren. The Sindh government reports that 18 million acres of agricultural land remain uncultivated due to water shortages, a staggering figure that reflects the depth of the crisis. These uncultivated lands represent lost economic opportunities and deepening poverty in a province where 37% of the rural population lives below the poverty line. Cutting off or further reducing Sindh’s access to water will only worsen these already troubling statistics.
The justification for the proposed canals centers around irrigating Punjab’s desert regions. However, this rationale ignores Sindh’s own water needs, including the challenges faced by the people of the Thar Desert, where access to drinking water is already a daily struggle. The inhabitants of Thar largely rely on rainwater, a divine resource they manage to sustain themselves with despite its unpredictability. It is critical for the federal government to remember that Sindh, like Punjab, is an integral part of Pakistan, and its people deserve equitable treatment and resource allocation.
The historical context further amplifies Sindh’s mistrust of such projects. Previous governments have proposed controversial plans, such as the Kala Bagh Dam, which met with fierce opposition and ultimately failed. These plans, while often presented as beneficial to the nation, tend to overlook their detrimental effects on specific regions. Similar to the failed dam project, the proposed six canals risk triggering public outrage and fostering resentment among Sindh’s people. The fear of rebellion looms large, as the deprivation of essential resources like water can push marginalized communities toward desperate measures to secure their rights.
The socio-political implications of this project cannot be ignored. Farmers, activists, and ordinary citizens in Sindh view the plan as an existential threat and have vowed to resist it. Prominent voices, including the President of the Sindh Abadgar Board (SAB), Mahmood Nawaz Shah, have declared that they will never allow the six-canal project to succeed, equating its success to their death. For those already struggling below the poverty line, the loss of water is not just an economic blow but a life-or-death issue. Their determination to resist this project underscores the urgency of addressing their concerns before they escalate into broader unrest.
It is undeniable that governments must plan for national progress and development. However, effective governance requires a holistic view that takes into account the potential harm to vulnerable populations. In this case, the federal government seems to be overlooking the critical “other side of the book.” While the irrigation needs of Punjab are important, they must not come at the expense of Sindh’s survival. Striking a balance is essential to avoid deepening existing disparities and creating new fault lines in national unity.
The government must recognize the devastating consequences of depriving Sindh of its water. Agriculture is not just an economic activity in Sindh; it is a way of life. Denying water to its farmers means destroying their livelihoods and leaving them unable to feed themselves. With much of the rural population already living in poverty, such measures could push them further into desperation. The federal government should prioritize policies that uplift all provinces equitably, ensuring that no region feels sidelined or deprived.
Instead of pursuing the construction of six canals, the government should focus on addressing the pressing issue of water scarcity across Pakistan. Collaborative efforts between provinces, informed by transparent and equitable resource allocation, are needed to create sustainable solutions. Advanced irrigation technologies, water conservation practices, and improved infrastructure could help mitigate the water crisis without disproportionately harming any province.
The resistance to the proposed six-canal project is not a mere expression of provincialism; it is a cry for justice. Sindh’s people are not asking for special privileges but are simply demanding their fair share of a resource critical to their existence. Neglecting their needs and pushing ahead with this project would not only devastate Sindh but also set a dangerous precedent of disregard for regional concerns.
In conclusion, the federal government must reject the six-canal project and revisit its approach to water management. A collaborative, inclusive strategy that considers the needs of all provinces is essential for maintaining national cohesion and ensuring sustainable development. Sindh’s people deserve the government’s attention and support, not policies that threaten their survival. By addressing their concerns and prioritizing equitable resource distribution, Pakistan can move toward a future where all its citizens, regardless of their province, can thrive.
The author is a student of English Literature.
