Human securitization of water? A case study of the Indus Waters Basin

Abstract

In the large and growing literature on hydropolitics, insecurity generated through water-related conflicts is most often conceptualized under a model of economic resource scarcity. Conflict is generally reduced to the question of who has water, who needs water and thus what cost, in economic, political or military terms, is appropriate to acquiring access to water. This article argues that while such analyses effectively chart the central resource-strategic relations involved in the geopolitics of water, they nonetheless disregard the deeper biological and cultural (that is social, ethnic, religious) significance of water in any water conflict. Such analyses, it claims, are too strongly linked to the traditional (as opposed to human) security discourse and therefore run the risk of misdiagnosing the complexity of the water resource challenge. To respond to this challenge the article will develop a human security ‘metrics’ for analysing water-based conflicts in human security terms. It will then compare an analysis of the Indus Waters Treaty based upon the human security approach with an analysis based on a ‘traditional’ security assessment of the treaty in order to assess the viability of the two approaches. Finally, the article will link the comparative assessments back to the water wars literature, drawing conclusions about its strengths and weaknesses and the possibility of a synthesis of traditional and human security in the analysis of water conflict.

Notes

¹ A short list would include Burgess and Owen (2004), Glasius and Kaldor (2006), Gleditsch (2005), Graham and Poku (2000), Human Security Centre (2005), Kaldor (2004), Krause and Jütersonke (2005), Liotta (2002, 2005), Lodegaard (2000), MacFarlane and Khong (2006), Mack (2002b, 2002a), MacKay (2004), Newman and Richmond (2001), O'Brien et al (2010), Ogata (2004), Owen (2004), Paris (2001), Ramcharan (2002), Richmond (2003), Suhrke (1999), Tadjbakhsh (2004, 2005), Tehranian and Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research (1999), Thakur and Malcontent (2004), Wallensteen and Heldt (2004), Whitman (2005).

² Critchley and Terriff (1993), who support Gleick's scarcity thesis, propose slightly different metrics. They argue that resources directly result in conflict when: (1) they are becoming increasingly scarce in a region, (2) they are essential for human survival and (3) the resource can be physically seized or controlled.

³ The importance of institutions in buffering the potential stress of water scarcity is supported by research done by Hensel et al (2006, Carius et al 2005, 1), which concludes that while scarcity can cause conflict, it will be greatly mitigated by the efforts of institutions designed to address the challenges of scarcity. The 2006 Human Development Report comes to similar conclusions, listing four obstacles to cooperation over water: (1) competing claims and perceived national sovereignty imperatives, (2) weak political leadership, (3) asymmetries of power and (4) nonparticipation in basin initiatives. They place significant emphasis on institutional capacity building as a mitigating mechanism for this potential conflict onset (UNDP 2006, 223).

⁴ Article 2 (6) of the Indus Waters Treaty.

⁵ See Pakistan Council of Research in Water website, < http://www.pcrwr.gov.pk/NWQMP.htm>

⁶ These figures are not officially stated but roughly taken. The Information System Organization (ISO) under the Central Water Commission (CWC), a technical organization under Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, is responsible for collecting, storing and disseminating statistical data. See < http://www.cwc.nic.in/ISO_DATA_Bank/waterrelated2007/contents.doc>.

⁷ The projects are listed on the NHPCL website,  < http://www.nhpcindia.asia/english/Scripts/Project_Construction.aspx>.

⁸ United Jihad Council (UJC) is an umbrella organization responsible for coordinating the activities in Pakistan of all jihadi groups.

⁹ In 1990, Musharraf, then a brigadier undergoing a year's training at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, wrote a dissertation, titled The arms race in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, conflicts with the pressing requirements of socio-economic development. What are its Causes and Implications? Is there a remedy?, arguing that Kashmir and water were interdependent and rivers hold the key to any solution (Waslekar 2005).

¹⁰ Article VII states: the two Parties recognize that they have a common interest in the optimum development of the Rivers, and, to that end, they declare their intention to cooperate, by mutual agreement, to the fullest possible extent. Article XII allows for agreed modification of the treaty.

¹¹ On 3 April 2002, the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, cutting across party affiliations, called for a review of the treaty.

¹² Hafiz Saeed, in a rally organized by the Jamat-ud-Dawa in Lahore in June 2010, called for a jihad against India alleging that it was deliberately turning Pakistan barren. The activists in the rally were sporting posters with messages ‘Water flows or blood’ (Soti).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

J Peter Burgess

J Peter Burgess is Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and Editor of Security Dialogue, and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His research and writing concern the meeting place between culture and politics in particular in Europe, focusing most recently on the theory and ethics of security and insecurity. Email: [email protected]

Taylor Owen

Taylor Owen is the Research Director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at the Columbia School of Journalism, the Director of the International Relations and Digital Technology Project, an international research project exploring the intersection of information technology and international affairs, and the founding editor of OpenCanada.org. His Doctorate is from the University of Oxford where he was a Trudeau Scholar. Email: [email protected]

Uttam Kumar Sinha

Uttam Kumar Sinha is a Fellow at IDSA and holds an adjunct position at the Malaviya Centre for Peace Research, Benares Hindu University. He is the Managing Editor of Strategic Analysis (Routledge) and Chair of the Near East and South Asia Regional Network on Water Dispute Resolution Mechanism, National Defense University, Washington. Email: [email protected]