Find peace in doing things for God. Don’t spare yourself. Conquer the flesh and you will see Him in front of you. The more you cater to flesh, the more you grumble, the worse you will be. Other temptations will invade you. That is why working hard for Him and meditating is the best way.
– Paramahansa Yogananda
You don’t know how free you are, when you have no husband nor wife to fuss about. First God; seek God first. I am not talking to those who are married. Those who are married, let them find out for themselves. But if you are already married you can find God just the same. But if you are free, why should you lose your freedom? God first. It is His world. It is He who is trying to delude us with wine, sex and money.
– Paramhansa Yogananda
When God’s decree becomes your pleasure, you become a willing slave, not because of burdening yourself, not on account of recompense, but by virtue of the nature now so pure that wherever divine edict may take you, living and dying will appear the same. You live for God, not for riches; you die for God, not from fear or pain.
– Rumi
You must try to rise above these changing scenes. Do not become discouraged when people strike you. You must remember to control yourself. Don’t talk too much. Those who talk too much are liable to talk useless things and waste their time. Avoid useless talk, and don’t be inquisitive about others. Be curious about God. about Gita, and about your lessons. Seek quiet places where you can be alone. Meditate and find your spiritual balance.
– Paramhansa Yogananda
On Sunday 12 August 2018, a US-based group called ‘Sikhs for Justice’ organised a rally in London (UK) to demand what it called ‘Sikh Referendum 2020’ in the Indian state of Punjab to find whether Sikhs there want a separate State for themselves.
Before discussing what such groups exactly want, first a couple of simple questions for this group –
Does the group ‘Sikhs for Justice’ imply that they are the only Sikhs who stand for justice, and those Sikhs who are not their members don’t stand for justice? What is the meaning of the group giving the title ‘Sikhs for Justice’ exclusively to themselves?
Secondly, do the ‘Sikhs for Justice’ demand ‘Justice for All’ or ‘Justice for Sikhs only’. If it is the latter, then you should be calling your organisation ‘Sikhs for Justice for Only Sikhs’, rather than presenting yourselves as ‘saviours of everybody’. Let the group’s potential followers and observers know that the group members are not concerned about non-Sikhs – no matter how much indignities are inflicted and atrocities are committed upon them.
On the other hand, if ‘Sikhs for Justice’ stand for ‘Justice for All’, then the group needs to answer what have they done from their own side to provide justice to the families of innocent people killed by the followers of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, presumably their own spiritual leader? Before he was flushed out of the Golden Temple, Mr Bhindranwale led a gang of (Sikh) terrorists who killed hundreds of innocent Hindus, Nirankaris and Sikhs. According to the independently compiled reports, in the two year period between 4 August 1982, when the so-called Dharma Yudh Morcha (Sikh Jihad) was launched, and 3 June 1984 there were more than 1200 violent incidents in which 410 persons were killed and 1180 injured. In the year 1984 itself between 1 January and 3 June, 775 violent incidents happened killing 298 and injuring 525. All this happened before the Operation Blue Star and before the anti-Sikh riots following Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Do those innocent victims not deserve any justice? Before you ask for justice for yourself, shouldn’t you be asking for and doing something towards justice to the victims of your own violent campaign that provoked anti-Sikh sentiment in India in the first place?
Coming to the main issue, the State Sikh separatist elements crave for is called Khalistan, the land of the pure! The thinking is to have a state on the lines of Pakistan, the land of the pious! Pakistan and Khalistan are synonyms.
Now, a verse from the Granth Sahib, the Sikhs’ holy book, written by the 15th century Indian mystic poet and saint Kabir, says –
Awwal Allah Noor Upaya, Qudrat Ke Sab Bande!
Aik Noor Te Sab Jag Upajiya, Kaun Bhale Ko Mande!!
(God created the light from which all human-beings were born! The whole universe was born from one source; So, whom would you call good and whom bad!!)
The verse is widely quoted in Sikh teachings. So, the question the proponents of Khalistan need to answer is – Who do they call ‘pure’ and whom they would call ‘impure’, and on what basis?
The Sikh Gurus have also said, “Manas ki jaat sabai eikai pahachaanbau”, meaning ‘All human-beings are one caste; we must treat them all equally.’ So, on what basis are the proponents of Khalistan discriminating between Sikhs and non-Sikhs, and demanding a State exclusively for Sikhs? Are they not violating the teachings of the Gurus, while claiming to be their disciples?
By demanding an exclusive State for Sikhs, the proponents of Khalistan are in fact saying Sikhs can’t live with non-Sikhs, definitely not with Hindus, who are basically their cousins. If you can’t live with your cousins who are the same race as you, who speak the same language as you, who have the same ancestors as you, and who respect your religion as much as their own, which is your ancestors’, how would then Sikhs live with people of other races and other religions (in whose eyes they are still pagans) in Britain, Canada and the US? When are they going to demand separate Sikh States in those countries? In your “struggle” for Khalistan against India, you expect to get support from Western countries! Do you expect the people in Western countries to be totally dumb and not see the danger you pose to them in the future? People of Canada have not forgotten 23 June 1985 when you blew up midair Air India flight 182 operating on the Montréal-London-Delhi-Bombay route off the coast of Ireland killing 329 people. Among them were 22 Indian nationals and 280 Canadian nationals. Do you think the Canadian people thanked you for that?
You are demanding a State on the pattern of Pakistan that was created exclusively for Muslims. That State was based on ethnic cleansing. It was established by chasing out Hindus and Sikhs out their lands where they had lived for thousands of years. Now, you are craving for a State exclusively for Sikhs! You’re dreaming to chase out Hindus and other non-Sikhs from Punjab! Do you know what repercussions it could have for the Sikhs living in other parts of India? More than 5 million Sikhs live outside Punjab, in other states of India. Before demanding Khalistan, have you consulted those Sikhs? Are you going to invite all those people to join Khalistan? Do you have a settlement plan for them? Are they prepared for this? Why the socalled referendum should be confined to the state of Punjab?
Today you demand a separate State in the name of Sikhism. Suppose tomorrow a minority community among Sikhs such as Ramgarhias (who even today have separate gurudwaras) or Dalit Sikhs demand a separate State for themselves, would you accept the demand?
Would the proponents of Khalistan treat all Sikhs equally? Would you all drop your surnames showing your castes such as Sandhus and Siddhus? Why have you not done it so far?
You say Pakistan is your friend. According to the 1941 census, in some of the districts that now form Pakistan the Sikh population was as high as 19.8%. After the creation of Pakistan it dropped to 0.1% in all of them. What do you think Pakistan did to its Sikh population?
The Pakistani army and ISI might still “love” you and help you in your “fight” against India. However, in the eyes of Islam, you are still ‘disbelievers’. People like Hafez Sayeed still consider you Kafir (infidel). So, what treatment do you expect from Pakistani establishment where Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhavi, Maulana Masood Azhar and Hafez Sayeed wield power, once Sikhs get separated from India?
Different proponents of Khalistan have made different territorial claims for the formation of Khalistan. If you are after the territory Maharaja Ranjit Singh ruled, then most of it is in Pakistan now. Are you sure that Pakistan would allow you to take over that region? Some of your leaders have made claims over Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and parts of Rajasthan too. What is the basis of these claims over these areas, where Sikhs form a tiny minority of the population, that too through immigration from Punjab in the recent decades? Or do you think you would be able to chase out non-Sikhs from those areas too?
Historically Sikhism has been pan-Indian. The Granth Sahib draws from works of saints in North as well as South India (a large part of it is written in Khari Boli and Braj Bhasha, and not in Punjabi), and many of the important seats of Sikhism such as Nankana Sahib in Pakistan, Sri Patna Sahib in Bihar and Hazur Sahib in Maharashtra are outside the Indian state of Punjab.
So, how are you going to follow the dictum Raj Bina Nahin Dharam Chale Hai (without self-rule a religion can’t keep going) with many important seats of Sikhism still outside the raj (rule) of Khalistan/Sikhistan?
The proponents of Khalistan also need to inform their potential followers a bit about the character of the proposed State –
As you also believe Dharam Bina Sab Dalle Malle Hai (without religion everyone gets trampled upon), first and foremost question is, what would be the position of clergy in the governmental system of Khalistan? You were happy for Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale to occupy the Golden Temple and stockpile a large quantity of weapons and ammunition there.
Would in your Khalistan both the government and the religion be run by the clergy sitting in the Golden Temple and they would be allowed to store weapons & ammunition in gurudwaras and keep an army? Or would there be an elected government? If the government would be formed through elections, what power the clergy would have over the government ‘to stop it from trampling over everyone’?
Or would you follow the Pakistan model where the army has the overriding power over the elected government, and religious clergy is kept subordinate to the government. If you adopt that model, how would the dictum of ‘Dharam Bina Sab Dalle Malle Hai’ be taken care of?
Assuming Punjabi in Gurumukhi to be the official language, and being “progressive” leaders you would like people to learn English too. But would people be allowed to learn other foreign languages such as Hindi, Urdu, Persian, etc and watch foreign films such as Hindi and English movies, and whether they would be allowed to have full access to the internet? Such freedoms could have corrupting influence on the “pure” people of Khalistan, you know! What dress code men and women would be made to follow? If a man wants to cut his hair, or shave his beard, what punishment would they be given? Basically, how would you deal with a bajjarprati?
The most important question is – Whether there would be any freedom of religion at all in Khalistan? One would assume going back into the Hindu fold would not be tolerated in Khalistan. You would most probably have death penalty for such people! But what if a person wants to get converted into Islam or Christianity, how would they be dealt with? Would you kill them too, or would you let them change their religion?
Remember, if you let people change their religion, theoretically everyone can change their religion, and the Khalistan could disappear. It is not entirely impossible – Sethis, Bajwas, Cheemas and Ranas in Pakistan got converted from Sikhism to Islam. On the other hand, if you bar people from changing into Islam, do you expect to have friendly relations with Pakistan? Furthermore, if you bar people from converting into Christianity, how those of you who live in Western countries would justify your right to profess and propagate your religion in these countries? What if these primarily Christian countries bar you from practicing any non-Christian faith? You would be denying the citizens of Khalistan the rights that you enjoy yourself in the West. Would that be justifiable? You murdered Nirankari Chief, you attacked followers of other cults and faiths! And, you expect the West and the World to support you! Pakistan may support you till you get separated from India. Do you believe Pakistan to continue to coddle you, particularly when some of you talk of breaking up Pakistan too!
You proclaim Sikhs are a separate nation and your history starts only from the time of Sikh Gurus (about 500 years ago), and you have no connection with the Hindus! How has this come about? Are Sikhs a different species and were airdropped by ‘God’ into the land of Punjab! Contrary to your belief, no such thing happened – Get your DNA checked and you would find that you have the same blood as Jats of Haryana, Rajputs of Rajasthan, Khatris of Punjab and the rest of Hindus. Your ancestors were the same as those of the Hindus. This is a physical fact.
But you have developed such hatred towards your ancestors that you hate the connection with them – actually you don’t even acknowledge the connection. Well, how would you feel if a section of your descendants hates you the same way? Imagine one of your grandsons or great grandsons turning their back on Sikhism and calling you ‘backward thinking’! You think it cannot happen? Your ancestors also never thought that their descendants would hate them the way you do. There was a convention among the Hindus of Punjab. They used to make one of their sons join Sikh panth. They never imagined that their descendants would disown and hate them. The law of nature is – What goes around, comes around – if you hate your ancestors, your descendants would do the same to you.
You are hankering after a homeland for Sikhs, and you say that India is the homeland of Hindus only. Would you then say that India is not the homeland of Jains, whose religious philosophy and traditions separate from the so-called Hindus are much older than yours – more than two thousand years old?
You may not, but the rest of the world can see – India is the homeland of not merely Hindus. India is the birthplace of Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism along with Sanatan Dharma. And India is the homeland of every person who calls themselves Indian, whatever their race or faith. India is certainly the homeland of Sikhs. How can it not be the homeland of Sikhs when a Sikh became the prime minister of India twice in the space of 15 parliaments after Independence! There is no top position in the country that Sikhs, with less than 2% population, have not occupied.
Khalistan is primarily a Diaspora construct. The first known proponent of Khalistan, Davinder Singh Parmar migrated to London in 1954 and asserted the demand for an independent state of Khalistan. And the chief proponent of Khalistan was Jagjit Singh Chohan who moved to the United Kingdom, to start his campaign for creation of Khalistan, after losing the Punjab Assembly elections in 1969. It was Chohan who raised the Khalistani flag in Birmingham in 1970, and placed an advertisement in the New York Times in 1971 proclaiming an independent Sikh state.
Most of the Groups such as Babbar Khalsa International, International Sikh Youth Federation, and Sikhs for Justice also are based in the US, Canada and the UK. So would you really go back to Khalistan if it ever gets formed? Or do you just want to push the Sikhs of India into a swamp?
Don’t you think, you have done enough damage to the Sikhs – from being seen as ‘Sardar ji’ (leader/protector), they were reduced to ‘suspected terrorists’ all over India at one time; their job prospects and business interests suffered; and economically from Number One position in India, Punjab, though still above the Indian average, has drastically come down in its ranking among the states – the thirteenth position in 2016-17.
Just to say, immature Justin Trudeau might be romancing with you, but the people of Canada aren’t. They were aghast at Mr Trudeau’s antics, as you might have noticed by the reaction in the Canadian media, when he was dancing with Khalistanis at the Taj Mahal during his last unwelcome visit to India. The UK authorities might allow you to hold a rally in London, but people in the UK, France, Belgium, Spain, and Germany have had their fair share of Islamic terror, and haven’t got any more appetite for supporting terrorist organisations against other countries. Your track record isn’t exactly very peaceful.
Long gone are the days when anti-India elements used to get support from Western establishments. Among the Indian Sikh community there is zilch support for you. Whether you hold a rally in London or New York, you would get nowhere.
It might be an idea that you now pack up and go home, and let the Land of the Gurus have peace and prosperity as it was before you developed a craving for the mirage called Khalistan.
Copyright © 2018 Krishan Tyagi. All Rights Reserved.
some feedbacks received by the author on his personal website:
As always, your article is well written, informative and above all educative and rational.”
Mukat Singh, Educationist
“It’s a very well researched and logically advanced sharp rebuttal of the Khalistani movement. Thank you for sharing.”
Shivkant Sharma, former Sr Producer, BBC World Service
“The questions raised are very appropriate.”
Sardar Jagmohan Singh
“I found it a very passionate argument against Khalistan. I liked the fact that you quote from Sikh scriptures and remind people of the terrorism that Khalistanis carried out in the eighties. The facts you give lend a lot of weight to your argument. The only thing I can say against the article, is that I suspect some people won’t like it at all. Personally, I think the points you make are very valid.”
Jeanice, Development Activist
“Very impressed with the article! These elements pose a challenge to the Sikh community.”
Kailash Budhwar, former Head of the BBC Hindi Service
Jugad is a pure Indian word with no equivalent in the English language.
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180902-indias-ingenious-approach-to-life
Study on Water Management of the Indus River System
and its Implications for India’s Foreign Policy by Prof. Manohar Khushalani
Background
Two-thirds of India’s water resources potential come from only two river basins namely, the Indus and Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM). India occupies a unique position in this respect. There is abundance of Water and Hydro Power potential within the country and in its neighbouring states. The potential can be used both constructively as well as destructively.
India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Tibet, all share the Ganga- Brahmaputra- Meghna River basin. The Indus River Basin is shared by Tibet, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan
Pakistanis complain that numerous new Indian projects on the Jhelum and Chenab will create substantial live storage even in run-of-the-river hydel dams. This will empower India to reduce flows to Pakistan during the crucial sowing season, something that actually happened for a couple of days when the Baglihar reservoir was filled by India after dam completion. If as a result of better coordination between the two countries the dam had been filled up during monsoons it would have actually helped Pakistan . Understanding each other’s needs and constraints the key.
The average supply of water that reaches Pakistan is 104 million acre feet while the water that is consumed is 70 million acre feet. “The mismanagement in Pakistan was resulting in the loss of 34 million acre feet of water”, informed Mr. Qureshi when asked by Pak media as to whether Pakistan had taken up the issue, in Thimphu , of India trying to block the flow of rivers.
The total area of the Indus Basin, the area draining the, Himalayan water into the Arabian Sea, is about 365,000 square miles (934,000 sq.km), larger than Pakistan’s total area. The Indus River system consists mainly of the Indus River and its major eastern tributaries, the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej Rivers. A number of rivers join the Indus on its west side. The largest is Kabul with its main tributary, the Swat River
The Indus Water Treaty is well known. The Treaty gave India exclusive use of waters of the eastern rivers, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. Pakistan was given those of the western rivers – the Indus, Jehlum and Chenab. The division of the Indus river waters is a parallel of the partition of land between India and Pakistan.
Signed in 1960 by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the then Pakistan President Ayub Khan, the Indus Water Treaty was brokered by World Bank. It is an surprisingly over generous water-sharing treaty, and is the only pact in the world that compels the upper riparian state to defer unequally to the interests of the lower riparian state.
The treaty gives Pakistan control over the three so-called “western” rivers – that flow from Jammu and Kashmir before entering Pakistan. On the other hand, India gets to control the three eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej that flow from Punjab.
This so called parity in the number of rivers is, however, quite misleading. It was what would constitute a himalyan blunder. The three rivers that India gets to control have an awfully low volume of waters compared to the other three. In all, Pakistan gets a whopping 80 MAF of water every year which is a massive 84 per cent share of the total waters, while India gets to use only 16 per cent. (Source: Wikipedia)
However it contained provisions for India to establish run-of- the-river power projects with limited reservoir capacity and flow control needed for feasible power generation. Availing the provision, India established several run-of-the-river projects most of which were not objected to by Pakistan. However, in case of Baglihar and Kishan-Ganga projects, Pakistan claimed that some design parameters were more lax than needed for power generation and provided India with excessive ability to accelerate, decelerate or block flow of river. This, it was felt, may give India a strategic leverage in times of tension or war.
During 1999-2004 India and Pakistan held several rounds of talks on the design of projects, but could not reach an agreement. After failure of talks on January 18, 2005 Pakistan raised six objections and took up the matter with the World Bank, which was a broker and signatory of Indus Water Treaty. In April 2005 the World Bank determined Pakistani claim as a ‘Difference’, a classification between less serious ‘Question’ and more serious ‘Dispute’ and in May 2005 appointed Professor Raymond Lafitte, a Swiss civil engineer, to adjudicate the difference.
Lafitte declared his final verdict on February 12, 2007, in which he partially upheld some objections of Pakistan declaring that pondage capacity be reduced by 13.5%, height of dam structure be reduced by 1.5 meter and power intake tunnels be raised by 3 meters, thereby limiting some flow control capabilities of earlier design. However he rejected Pakistani objections on height and gated control of spillway declaring these were conforming to engineering norms of the day.
Both parties (India and Pakistan) have already agreed that they will abide by the final verdict. This peaceful settlement of the only major discord in nearly half a century is an even greater achievement, considering the fact that the two neighbors have gone to war thrice on other issues.
On the flip side, according to one estimate, the Kabul river accounts for 20 to 30 MAF of total annual flows, the main Indus 100 MAF and the Jhelum and Chenab 60, while the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej add another 40 MAF or so. Looking at it mathematically, India gave far more water to Pakistan than it got. Secondly China has built Senge-tsangpo hydropower station with cap of 6400 mw tributaries and upper reaches of Indus in the Ngari Prefuncture of Tibet, with no objections raised by Pakistan.
India has made large investments in water infrastructure, much of which brings water to previously water-scarce areas and some of it diverts water from flood prone areas. This has resulted in an economic shift, with once-arid areas or previously flood prone zones becoming the centers of economic growth, while the traditionally well-watered areas have seen comparatively sluggish growth. For the most part the results of this “hydraulic infrastructure platform” have been spectacular both nationally (through the production of food grains and electricity, for example) and regionally (where such projects have generated large direct and equally large indirect economic benefits). The poor have benefited hugely from such investments. The incidence of poverty in irrigated districts is one third of that in unirrigated districts .
The privatisation of Power has also contributed to this growth. The Mushrooming growth of large scale Hydro Power companies such as JP Hydro, Larsen and Toubro, GVK Power, Tata Power have contributed to greater availability of this clean source of power. Partial privatization of public sector companies such as NHPC and Power Grid Corporation has improved the climate for this source of power. Even the hitherto coal and gas based power generators such as NTPC have turned to Hydro Power. This augurs well for hydropower in India.
The first decade of the millennium has been marked by what has often been described as oil wars – confrontation over dwindling hydrocarbon fuel resources. Will the next decade be marked by confrontation over water and hydro energy, or will it be known for cooperation over sharing the natural resources?
How India manages its relations with its neighbours is going to be a key to the kind of economic progress it can make along its borders. Water is a key issue in its relationship with its neighbours. Even though it is a renewable resource it cannot be denied that fresh water is a dwindling resource. The key to India’s relationship with Pakistan, which have been largely conflict ridden, is a sharing of the waters of the Indus Basin, which could in fact be considered to be one of the success stories and perhaps an example for the rest of the world about how seemingly intractable bones of contention can be resolved through a rational and conciliatory approach.
Instead of going through the complications of assessing water requirement downstream of each of the rivers, a metaphorical knife was used to cut off and hand over three rivers to Pakistan and three to India. On the face of it, since all the six rivers of the Indus Basin run first through India and then go to Pakistan it seemed to be a brilliant stroke of statesmanship – an apparently visionary approach which made India willingly part with three of the six rivers even while it retained the right to draw power through run of the river schemes on those three rivers. Has the policy worked successfully only because India might have given more than it got? Out of the three bilateral issues, namely one in Baglihar, a conflict of interest arose which was resolved amicably. What about the other pending bones of contention namely the Tulbul Navigation Project and the 330MW Kishenganga Project? The negotiations stalled for long.
The unprecedented 2010 floods in Pakistan may have abated but the havoc caused by them have cast an unimaginable havoc on its economy. Conservative September estimates suggested that over 2000 persons had died and 21 million became refugees in their own country. Secondary damages to agricultural land and animal husbandry will take years to recoup. At one point about one-fifth of Pakistan’s total land area had gone under water. Flood waters had destroyed crops; an estimated 700,000 acres of cotton, 200,000 acres each of rice and sugar cane and 300,000 acres of wheat. This heavily impacted the agricultural economy which contributed 20.4% of Pakistan’s GDP in the earlier year. The cascading effect into industry and trade is has added to its economic woes.
Scientists have described this catastrophe as a once-in-a-century flood. Out of a Population of 168 million nearly 21 milion people have been affected by floods out of a total area of Pakistan of 796 095 square kilometers, the Flood-affected area is 160 000 square kilometers. In a country where already a large percentage of the population is living as refugees, an additional 1.85 million homes have been destroyed or damaged due to floods.
Pakistan is, thus at a fork in the road. It can either continue confrontationist policies which underlie present arrangements (or lack thereof) and face similar or perhaps bigger flood disasters in future, if anticipated climate change effects do materialise. Or it can chose to cooperate with countries in the Indus basin with a view to building an integrated system of storage dams, flood control installations and power generation stations which will help to modulate flows and avert floods, thereby benefitting Pakistan’s agriculture particularly its struggling farmers. The attendant hydropower potential is also huge and can be tapped for the energy-hungry Pakistani economy, as well as cross-border sales to India. The big question is whether the Pakistan’s rulers can change their confrontationist mindset to make this possible. If there was no deficit of trust India could have stored water even in the eastern rivers of the Indus basin to be used as a kind of buffer during floods. But, for that an integrated basin management is required, because the mighty rivers, follow their own course, they do not recognize man made political boundaries
For that a reality check is required in both the countries. A recent example of this was a very honest admission in 2010 by the former Pakistan Foreign Minister. While it is this kind of statesmanship and honesty that will help in getting a fresh look at this issue, on the other hand the sacking of the Pakistan’s Indus Commissioner, Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, who amongst other reasons was also discredited for making a similar pragmatic observation and the departure from Government of the pragmatic Shah Mehmood Qureshi, perhaps, indicates that moderates in Pakistan may not be able to mellow the debate.
There is a very good logic in understanding the socio-economic needs of the entire region namely Kashmir, Punjab in India and Pakistan, Pakhtoonkhwa, Sindh, Gujarat and Rajasthan. Assessing the genuine needs of populace in the two countries and trying to involve a cross border management plan for the entire region could perhaps become a key to breaking down the borders between the two countries and expanding the scope of cooperation in the region. Is it possible to achieve the impossible? But this is what all dreams are made of.
Of late, Pakistani militants, for lack of issues which could build up anti India sentiment, have started to focus on the Water as a contentious issue. It is therefore important to bring down the rhetoric by using an objective approach.
It will research long term implications for Indus basin countries (India, Pakistan and Afghanistan) in terms of water availability (for agriculture and individual consumption), hydropower, downstream economic impact , and social, political & security effects under (a) the present dispensation and (b) an optimally integrated river management along the lines of the Tennessee Valley Authority .