A Public Clash Over Policy and Provocation
A public war of words has erupted between Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and his predecessor Mehbooba Mufti over the proposal to revive the long-stalled Tulbul Navigation Project. The clash, unfolding in real time on social media, highlights not just the deep political divide between the two leaders, but also underscores the high-stakes implications of water diplomacy amid deteriorating Indo-Pak ties.
While Abdullah advocated for resuming the project following India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), Mufti accused him of indulging in provocative politics that could reignite cross-border tensions and further destabilize the region.
The Tulbul Project and Its Diplomatic Baggage
The Tulbul Navigation Project, located at the mouth of Wular Lake in North Kashmir, was initiated in 1987. Designed to regulate water flow in the Jhelum River to aid year-round navigation and boost downstream power generation, it was soon embroiled in controversy. Pakistan objected, claiming the barrage violated the terms of the IWT, a 1960 agreement brokered by the World Bank that allocated river waters between the two countries.
While India has always maintained that Tulbul adheres to the Treaty’s guidelines, the project was halted in 2007 to avoid further diplomatic friction. However, following the Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025 that killed 26 civilians, India officially suspended the Treaty on April 23, signaling a major policy shift.
Seizing this opportunity, Omar Abdullah posted on social media:
“Since the water pact with Pakistan has been kept in abeyance, I wonder if we will be able to resume the project.” He argued the project would improve navigation on the Jhelum and enhance power generation, especially in winter, benefiting the people of J&K.
Mufti Fires Back: “Weaponizing Water is Dangerous”
Mehbooba Mufti was quick to condemn the remarks, calling them “irresponsible and dangerously provocative.” She cautioned that such rhetoric, especially in the wake of recent near-war tensions, could have devastating consequences for civilians in Jammu and Kashmir.
In her post on X, Mufti said:
“Weaponising something as essential and life-giving as water is inhumane and risks internationalising what should remain a bilateral matter.”
She further criticized the timing of Abdullah’s statement, suggesting that J&K’s pain was being politicized rather than alleviated. She asserted that the people of the Union Territory deserved peace and development, not sabre-rattling over controversial infrastructure.
Abdullah Strikes Back: “I’m Advocating for J&K’s Rights”
Omar Abdullah did not take the criticism lightly. He accused Mufti of trying to “score cheap publicity points” and “please some people sitting across the border.”
He said: “Opposing a blatantly unfair treaty is not warmongering—it’s about correcting a historic injustice that denied the people of J&K the right to use our own water.”
Abdullah emphasized that he was not advocating aggression or violating international law but pushing for greater autonomy and resource control within the Indian Union.
Historical Jabs and Political Allegiances
The spat soon turned personal and historical. Mufti took aim at the National Conference’s shifting positions, pointing out that Sheikh Abdullah—Omar’s grandfather—had once advocated accession to Pakistan before aligning with India post-reinstatement.
She claimed her People’s Democratic Party (PDP) had remained consistent, unlike the NC, which she accused of altering loyalties based on political convenience. Omar responded by defending his party’s legacy, saying:
“You can advocate for whoever you want. I’ll advocate for the people of J&K to use our own rivers for our own benefit.”
He concluded the online exchange by asserting that he was focused on development and sovereignty, while dismissing Mufti’s criticism as “gutter politics.”
The Larger Context: Water, Warfare, and Regional Fragility
This spat comes at a time when Indo-Pak relations are at their lowest since the revocation of Article 370 in 2019. The Pahalgam attack, allegedly carried out by the Resistance Front, a proxy of Pakistan-based LeT, triggered India’s Operation Sindoor and a diplomatic offensive against Islamabad.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh have both signaled that future operations will depend on Pakistan’s behavior. Meanwhile, India is pushing the IMF to reconsider its $1 billion aid package to Pakistan, citing the latter’s support for terrorism.
Amid this geopolitical tension, domestic conversations about resources like water—already weaponized globally in many regions—are growing more sensitive.
A Battle of Narratives in a Time of Crisis
The public spat between Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti is not just a political squabble. It reflects larger ideological fault lines within Kashmir’s leadership—one advocating a more assertive, internally sovereign stance within India, and the other warning against provocation and external entanglement.
At the heart of this debate lies a vital question: Who gets to control Kashmir’s natural resources—and at what cost? In a region already torn between insurgency, identity, and international interests, water may very well become the next axis of confrontation.
Ultimately, the challenge for J&K’s leadership isn’t just about managing water flow, but about navigating the delicate balance between autonomy, diplomacy, and responsibility in a time of increasing uncertainty. Dialogue is essential—but so is vision. And the people of Kashmir, caught between borders and barricades, deserve both.
(With agency inputs)
