Troubled waters
READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.
MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC
By holding a meeting on the Indus Waters Treaty and scheduling another later this week on MFN (Most Favoured Nation) status to Pakistan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has signalled his intent (a purpose) to examine all the non-military options before the government for a strong response to the Uri attack. “Blood and Water cannot flow together,” he is reported to have said. However, after the meeting, officials made it clear that the IWT will hold, at least for the moment. Instead, the Centre drew up a list of measures to optimise (to make something more efficient) use of the Indus waters, that India has so far failed to do. The fact is that abrogating (to put an end to ; to do away with) the IWT is a non-starter as an option, and the holding of the meeting at this juncture (a place where things join) ill-considered.
For one, it confused the message in Mr. Modi’s Kozhikode speech, appealing (having attractive) to Pakistani citizens’ better instincts (a natural or inherent behaviour) to “wage a war on poverty”. More important, the 1960 treaty for the Indus and five tributaries flowing from India to Pakistan was brokered by the World Bank (then, the IBRD), and has held through wars and conflicts along the Line of Control. Revoking (to call back to mind ; to recollect) it would threaten regional stability and India’s credibility globally. It remains unclear what India intends to do with the “western” rivers in question beyond the short-term plan to irrigate Jammu and Kashmir’s fields better.
Dams required to hold the course of the tributaries of the Indus to alter water levels to Pakistan dramatically would take more than a decade to build. Given the environmental and geopolitical consequences of such actions, they are unlikely to elicit any international funding.It is clear that the Centre didn’t think through its next steps when it declared with a grand flourish (to develop ; to expand; grow well) , amplified by frenzied television headlines, that the Prime Minister would “review” the Treaty. But it did limit the potential damage by bringing down the heated rhetoric with a rational analysis on the Treaty.
It would be wise if India proceeds with a sense of pragmatic (practical ; concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice) caution in making further statements on Pakistan — for instance, revoking the MFN status will hardly punish Pakistan’s economy given the low levels of bilateral trade. Terrorist attacks such as the one at Uri require a combination of measured but firm responses, rather than weighing every option in full public view. India cannot also ignore the fact that the Uri attack has exposed the need to shore up its defences. As India has realised time and again, its response to provocation (the act of annoying someone into doing something) must carry the message that the country is dependable and not given to irrational, irresponsible actions that its neighbour is 0ften prone to.
