Full Post Style

Naba Thakuria

Guwahati: Patriotic People’s Front Assam (PPFA), a northeast India-based forum of nationalist citizens, lauds Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for highlighting the importance of Hinglaj Mata Mandir in Balochistan locality of south-west Pakistan, citing the link with Maa Kamakhya Devalaya atop Nilachal hills in the city. Amid the growing uprising among Baloch people against the illegal occupation and misrule of Islamabad over their land since 1947, CM Sarma commented that Balochistan holds profound historical and spiritual significance for Hindus, primarily as the sacred home of Hinglaj Mata Temple, one of the 51 revered Shakti-Peeths across Bharat.

“Nestled in the rugged terrains of Hingol National Park, the temple (Nani Mandir as Balochs affectionately call) is believed to mark the spot where the forehead of Goddess Sati fell, making it one of the holiest sites in Shaktism,” said Sarma on his social media handle, adding, “For centuries, Hindu pilgrims, particularly from the Sindhi, Bhavsar, and Charan communities, have undertaken arduous journeys across deserts to seek blessings at this shrine.” The holy place is also deeply respected by the Baloch people, reflecting a rare legacy of inter-communal reverence and shared heritage.

Years back, the PPFA urged the Union government in New Delhi to take necessary initiative for revitalizing the Hinglaj temple, which is connected to Kamrup Kamakhya legends. The sacred temple is located in a mountain cave on the bank of Hingol river, which is adjacent to the Makran coast of Arabian Sea. It has an idol of Goddess Shakti (Sati, daughter of Daksha Maharaj), who married Lord Shiva against her father’s wish. Mythology narrates that in an important Yagna, organized by proud king Daksha, Sati (Parvati) and Shiva were not invited, but she wanted to attend the ritual.

Daksha humiliated Shiva in front of her and facing disgrace, Sati immolated herself. Angry Maheswar arrived there and cut Daksha’s head. Then Mahadev took Sati’s corpse on his shoulder and started wandering with Tandava Nritya. Finally with an aim to douse Shiva’s rage, Lord Vishnu cut Sati’s mortal remains into 51 pieces through Sudarsan Chakra. Body parts of Sati fell in various localities on Earth and all locations are today regarded as shrines by the Hindus, said the PPFA statement adding that Sati’s forehead with Hingul (sindoor/ vermillion) fell on the place, where the Hinglaj temple is located. The most sacred part (Yoni) fell on Nilachal hills of present-day Guwahati, where the Kamakhya temple is situated.

The history of independent India is filled with moments of idealism — some inspiring, others costly. Among the most consequential of these was Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s decision in 1960 to sign the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. It was hailed at the time as a diplomatic achievement, but in hindsight, it stands as one of the gravest strategic compromises India ever made — a decision that surrendered water, sovereignty, and leverage, all at once.

The Indus Waters Treaty handed over full control of three major rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — to Pakistan, even though all three originate in India (Article II). Worse still, India agreed to pay over £62 million (British Pound) to Pakistan to help it construct the dams, canals, and infrastructure needed to utilize those rivers (Article V(1)). This was not a peace treaty signed after war, nor was it demanded by a victorious adversary. It was a voluntary act of submission, driven by Nehru’s desire to be seen as a statesman of peace rather than a guardian of India’s long-term interests.

That a newly independent India, still reeling from Partition and refugee crises, chose to financially and hydrologically empower a country that had just invaded Kashmir in 1947, is baffling. It was not a peace treaty — it was a one-sided surrender disguised as diplomacy. In Nehru’s own words, it was done “in the interest of peace.” But what peace has Pakistan ever honored?

Since 1960, India has received nothing in return for its generosity. Instead, it has been met with three full-scale wars, the Kargil intrusion, decades of cross-border terrorism, and ongoing attempts to internationalize Kashmir. And yet, India faithfully upheld its side of the Treaty — even when Pakistan continued to bleed India by a thousand cuts.

The recent terror attack in Pahalgam may have served as the immediate trigger for India’s decision to withdraw from the treaty, but it must be clearly stated: the treaty was historically indefensible from the very beginning. Its flaw was not just in how Pakistan exploited it, but in how India, under Nehru’s leadership, willingly signed away a strategic resource without securing either parity or peace.

One of the treaty’s most shocking features is that it contains no exit or termination clause. This was likely inserted to ensure that India could never unilaterally assert itself. But here lies the irony: the absence of an exit clause does not bind India — it frees it. No sovereign democracy can be permanently enslaved to an agreement that restricts its development, rewards a hostile actor, and offers no mechanism for withdrawal, even in the face of repeated betrayal. Modern international law recognizes the right of nations to withdraw from such agreements under principles like material breach and fundamental change of circumstances.

In the wake of the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, the Modi government’s decision to pull out of the Indus Waters Treaty is not just a reaction — it is a historic correction. It marks the first time India has confronted Pakistan not just on the border or diplomatically, but through the very system that once rewarded Pakistan for its aggression. This is a moment of strategic clarity and constitutional courage. It sends a clear signal: India will no longer fund its enemies, empower their economy, or abide by colonial-era frameworks designed to restrict its future.

India’s exit sets a powerful precedent not just regionally, but globally. No international order can demand that peace-loving nations remain tied to treaties that are routinely dishonored in spirit by the other party. This is not abandonment of responsibility; it is assertion of rights. Just as India revoked Article 370 despite decades of political inertia, it has now begun the process of reclaiming its rivers, its leverage, and its pride.

History will remember Jawaharlal Nehru’s blunder — not merely for what it gave away, but for what it failed to anticipate. The Indus Waters Treaty was less about diplomacy and more about denial — denial of the realities of a hostile neighbor, and denial of India’s long-term strategic needs.
But history will also remember Narendra Modi’s correction — an act not of revenge, but of rebalancing. A nation that has stayed patient for 65 years is finally telling the world: our waters are not free, and our silence is not permanent.

In walking out of the Indus Waters Treaty, India has walked into a new era — where sovereignty is not sacrificed for symbolism, and where peace is no longer paid for with weakness.