The Indus Waters Treaty: A Parliament Divided, A Prime Minister Isolated

 Speaking from the Red Fort on August 15, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed by Jawaharlal Nehru with Pakistan in 1960, as “unjust and one-sided.” He argued that the agreement had inflicted severe losses on Indian farmers. Yet, this criticism of the treaty is not new. When the matter was debated in Parliament in 1960, members across the political spectrum — including Congress MPs — denounced it as unfair. Their protests, however, went unheard.

On November 30, 1960, the Lok Sabha held a brief but intense debate on the treaty. The discussion exposed a sharp divide: Nehru’s government defended the agreement as pragmatic statesmanship, while many MPs saw it as a dangerous compromise that sacrificed national interests.

The treaty, signed on September 19, 1960, in Karachi by Nehru and Pakistan’s President Ayub Khan, allocated the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — to India, while Pakistan received rights over the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. India also agreed to contribute ₹83 crore in sterling to finance Pakistan’s replacement works, with the World Bank acting as guarantor.

By the time Parliament debated it, the treaty had already been ratified. This lack of consultation sparked some of the sharpest criticism Nehru faced in his career. Almost every speaker condemned the agreement, with some dubbing it a “sell-out” or even a “second partition.”

Congressmen Turn Against Nehru

Harish Chandra Mathur, a Congressman from Rajasthan, reflected the discontent of his state, which relied heavily on Indus waters. He called the pact “all to the disadvantage of India, all to the advantage of Pakistan,” accusing Nehru of “over-generosity at the cost of our own people.” He warned that Rajasthan alone would suffer losses of ₹70–80 crore annually due to five million acre-feet of lost water.

Asoka Mehta, a respected Congress intellectual, was even more scathing. He described the agreement as reopening the wounds of Partition: “We are reopening all the wounds of 1947… this is being done again with the signature of our Prime Minister.” He argued that India had been forced to accept terms giving Pakistan 80% of Indus waters, worse than earlier proposals.

From Bengal, Congress MP A.C. Guha criticised the economic imbalance, pointing out that India, with 26 million acres in the Indus basin, would irrigate only 19% of its land, while Pakistan would irrigate over half of its 39 million acres. He questioned the wisdom of paying Pakistan in foreign exchange when India itself faced a currency crisis.

Vajpayee’s Fiery Intervention

Among the sharpest voices was a young Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then just 35. He argued that Parliament had been sidelined: “Either the earlier announcement of stopping waters to Pakistan by 1962 was wrong, or this treaty is wrong.” He warned that joint control over rivers, claimed by Ayub Khan, effectively meant joint possession — a threat to India’s sovereignty.

Vajpayee dismissed the treaty as appeasement, insisting that genuine peace could only rest on justice, not concessions. His speech resonated widely, marking one of his early interventions that would later shape his national profile.

Other MPs, including Independents and Communists, echoed these concerns. They condemned the absence of parliamentary consultation and described the treaty as one-sided.

Nehru’s Lonely Defence

When Nehru finally spoke, he defended the agreement as a hard-won compromise after a decade of negotiations. He dismissed claims of a “second partition” as “loose, meaningless language,” remarking, “Partition of what? A pailful of water?”

Nehru argued that India had effectively purchased peace by paying Pakistan, noting that Pakistan had originally demanded ₹300 crore, but India settled at ₹83 crore. Rejecting the idea of linking the treaty to Kashmir, he urged MPs to look beyond narrow concerns: “When we deal with mighty things like relations between nations, let us not adopt a narrow approach.”

His tone was weary yet resolute. But Nehru left midway for a meeting with the visiting Crown Prince of Japan, leaving an unsatisfied and unconvinced House behind.

Aftermath and Legacy

The debate ended without a vote, the treaty already binding. But it revealed a rare unity across party lines in criticising Nehru, who appeared isolated in defending his vision of international cooperation. For younger leaders like Vajpayee, the controversy became an opportunity to frame Nehru as overly idealistic and too ready to sacrifice national interests.

Most MPs warned that the treaty was a strategic blunder — a sell-out, even a “second partition.” Nehru insisted it was pragmatic, necessary, and ultimately beneficial.

Sixty-five years later, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, reviving a debate that has haunted Indian politics since 1960.