Introduction
Pakistan’s Strategic Canals Project, aimed at diverting water from the Jhelum and Chenab rivers into the Cholistan region, has sparked an ongoing canal conflict —not merely between provinces but between competing visions of national development and federal equity. At the heart of this complex issue is the challenge of how to expand agricultural productivity in barren regions like Cholistan while ensuring fair and sustainable water distribution among the country’s riparian provinces, particularly Sindh, which lies downstream on the Indus River System.
The Strategic Canals Project: A National Vision
Supporters of the project argue that the Strategic Canals Plan is not a unilateral initiative of Punjab, but a nationally approved and endorsed program aimed at revitalizing Pakistan’s agricultural sector. President Asif Ali Zardari, among others, has backed the initiative as part of a broader strategy to ensure food security, increase economic activity, and develop underutilized regions like Cholistan.
The Cholistan Desert, located in the southern part of Punjab, Pakistan, is a vast arid region covering around 26,000 square kilometers. Traditionally known for its nomadic lifestyle, camel herding, and historical forts, this desert has recently become the center of significant attention due to emerging plans of corporate farming supported by irrigation projects involving six water streams diverted from the Jhelum and Chenab rivers. The initiative aims to transform the barren lands of Cholistan into fertile grounds for commercial agriculture. However, this endeavor is not without controversy, raising questions about sustainability, water rights, and socio-economic consequences.
What is Corporate Farming?
Corporate farming refers to large-scale, industrialized agriculture operations run by private companies or state-owned enterprises. These entities control massive tracts of land and use modern techniques, mechanization, genetically modified seeds, and intensive irrigation systems to maximize crop production and profits.
In Pakistan, corporate farming is often backed by public-private partnerships, foreign investors, and the military establishment. The idea is to enhance food security, boost exports, and attract foreign investment. However, critics argue it often displaces local communities, monopolizes water resources, and prioritizes profit over ecological balance.
A powerful example that strengthens this argument is the case of Saudi Arabia, which successfully transformed vast stretches of its arid landscape—particularly the Rub’ al Khali (Empty Quarter) and parts of the An Nafud Desert—into green agricultural zones. Using center-pivot irrigation systems, cutting-edge water management technologies, and a long-term national planning strategy, Saudi Arabia initiated large-scale desert agriculture projects in regions such as Al-Qassim, Wadi ad-Dawasir, and Hail. Through substantial government investment, and strategic use of deep aquifers and desalinated seawater, the country became self-sufficient in wheat production during the 1980s and 1990s. Although wheat export has since been reduced due to aquifer depletion, Saudi Arabia remains a major producer of dairy, dates, and forage crops.
This model demonstrates that even the most barren and inhospitable deserts can be revived with a combination of vision, science, financial commitment, and national will. The Cholistan, though geographically different, holds similar potential if managed wisely and equitably.
From this perspective, the criticism is viewed as an unfortunate politicization of a national development effort that prioritizes the collective good over provincial divisions.
Cholistan: A Strategic Target for Corporate Farming
Cholistan is considered an ideal location for this model due to the following factors:
- Vast unutilized land: The desert offers thousands of hectares of state-owned land available for lease.
- Military and state ownership: A large portion of land falls under military or government control, making administrative procedures more streamlined for corporate leasing.
- Proximity to river systems: The nearby rivers, Jhelum and Chenab, offer a potential water source for irrigation.
Recent developments indicate that corporate entities, including military-run foundations and private investors, have been granted land in Cholistan under long-term lease contracts. These entities are cultivating high-value crops like wheat, cotton, fodder, and even fruits using pivot irrigation and imported technology.
Proponents emphasize several key points:
- The Cholistan desert, once known for its ancient irrigation systems, holds the potential for agricultural revival through modern canal irrigation.
- Water from the Jhelum and Chenab rivers is being channeled into this region in a planned and regulated manner, utilizing Punjab’s allocated share under the 1991 Water Accord.
- The project could help mitigate flood threats by diverting surplus flows during monsoon seasons into controlled canal networks.
- Large-scale farming initiatives, including corporate and state-managed agriculture, are seen as engines for job creation and technological advancement.
Sindh’s Concerns: Equity, Environment, and Federal Trust
On the other side of the debate, the government of Sindh and various civil society actors have voiced serious concerns. For them, the Strategic Canals Project raises red flags regarding federal overreach, ecological degradation, and the marginalization of downstream stakeholders.
Sindh’s key concerns include:
- The risk of reduced water flow to Sindh, particularly during dry seasons, which could exacerbate desertification, damage farmlands, and worsen the degradation of the Indus Delta.
- Allegations that canal construction and water diversions are taking place without full consultation with the Indus River System Authority (IRSA), which is mandated to ensure fair distribution of water resources among provinces.
- The perception that such projects disproportionately benefit corporate entities, military foundations, and political elites, often sidelining local farmers and traditional communities.
- The lack of environmental impact assessments and clear policy safeguards to protect lower riparian ecosystems.
For Sindh, the issue is not merely about water volume, but about governance, justice, and sustainability. The canal conflict is thus seen as a symptom of a deeper crisis in inter-provincial trust and federal cooperation.
Violation of the 1991 Indus Waters Apportionment Accord?
- This Accord, signed by all four provinces, sets quantitative water shares for each province from the Indus River System.
- Sindh argues that:
- Punjab is taking more than its allocated share, especially during low-flow seasons.
- The canals are being constructed without consensus or approval from the Indus River System Authority (IRSA).
Water Distribution: Natural Geography vs. Political Management
It is often argued that since Punjab is geographically endowed with the five major tributaries of the Indus River system, it naturally has access to more water. While this is true geographically, the management and distribution of water in a federal system like Pakistan is governed not by geography alone but by legal agreements, political institutions, and principles of equity.
The 1991 Water Accord remains the foundational legal instrument for water sharing among the provinces. Any significant new water diversion or infrastructure project must be evaluated within this framework, ensuring that no province is disadvantaged.
Rivers may be natural, but their distribution in a modern state is inherently political. Dams, barrages, canals, and pumping stations are all human interventions that require collective decision-making and institutional oversight.
The Role of IRSA and Cooperative Federalism
IRSA was created to manage inter-provincial water issues, but its role has increasingly come under strain. If major water infrastructure projects bypass IRSA’s consensus model, it weakens the authority of the institution and risks undermining the very foundation of Pakistan’s water-sharing compact.
For the Strategic Canals Project to succeed as a truly national venture, it must be brought under the oversight of IRSA and other relevant federal bodies. Environmental assessments, transparent data sharing, and legal review should be integral to the process.
Toward a Constructive Resolution
The canal conflict, while serious, also presents an opportunity for Pakistan to revisit and strengthen its federal water governance model. It is entirely possible to support national development in Cholistan while also addressing Sindh’s legitimate concerns.
Recommendations include:
- Full involvement of IRSA and environmental ministries in canal planning and implementation.
- Real-time data sharing on river flows, canal diversions, and usage by all provinces.
- Legal and policy safeguards for the rights of lower riparians, particularly during drought seasons.
- Ensuring that land development in Cholistan benefits local communities and not just large corporate entities.
- Developing a joint monitoring mechanism for water equity and environmental protection.
Pros and Cons of Corporate Farming in Cholistan
Pros:
- Efficient use of land resources with modern agricultural methods.
- Potential for high crop yields, export earnings, and food security.
- Job creation in otherwise underdeveloped regions.
- Technological transfer and infrastructure development.
Cons:
- Water diversion from already stressed river systems.
- Marginalization of local communities and small farmers.
- Ecological degradation and threat to desert biodiversity.
- Lack of transparency and equitable land distribution.
- Potential increase in inter-provincial tensions over water rights.
Concerns on Military Ownership
It is important to note that institutions such as the Army Welfare Trust and the Fauji Foundation are not privately owned corporations. These are state-owned welfare organizations working under the mandate of supporting the families of martyrs and retired personnel. Income generated from such initiatives is often reinvested in public welfare, defense technology, and national capacity-building. Therefore, the mere concern of corruption or favoritism should not be used as a blanket justification to exclude such institutions from participating in national development initiatives. Criticizing military ownership or direct involvement in corporate farming, without acknowledging the constitutional and welfare role of these organizations, may amount to overstating fears and creating a storm in a teacup.
Conclusion
The Strategic Canals Project reflects Pakistan’s urgent need for agricultural revival and economic expansion. However, without transparent governance and inter-provincial consensus, even the best-intentioned projects risk becoming sources of division. By balancing development goals with federal equity, Pakistan can transform this canal conflict into a model for cooperative progress and sustainable nation-building.
While the six strategic canals offer technical and economic benefits in the form of expanded agriculture and potential flood mitigation, they are simultaneously becoming symbols of inequity and mistrust in Pakistan’s inter-provincial dynamics.
Word Count: 1578 words
