Indus Water Treaty

• Context (TH): India seeks review and modification of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).

What is the Indus Water Treaty?

• In 1947, the partition had cut the Indus river system into two between India and Pakistan.
• Both the sides were dependent on water from the Indus river basin.
• Initially, the Inter-Dominion Accord (1948) was adopted.
  • It required India to provide water to the Pakistan in return for annual payments.
  • The agreement failed as both the countries could not agree on its interpretations.
• In 1951, both countries applied to the World Bank for funding of irrigation projects on ​​Indus System.
• It was then the World Bank offered to mediate the water-sharing dispute.
• As result, in 1960, the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) was signed by former PM Jawaharlal Nehru and then President of Pakistan, Ayub Khan.
• The former Vice President of the World Bank, W.A.B. Iliff, also signed the Indus Water Treaty.

Key Provisions of Indus Water Treaty

Water Sharing

• IWT prescribed how water from the six rivers would be shared between India and Pakistan.
• It allocated the three western rivers (i.e., Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum) to Pakistan for unrestricted use, barring certain non-consumptive, agricultural and domestic uses by India.
• It allocated the three eastern rivers, (i.e., Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) to India for unrestricted usage.
• This meant that 80% of the share of water went to Pakistan, leaving 20% of water for use by India.

Annexure C and D

• Though Pakistan has rights over waters of Jhelum, Chenab and Indus, but:
  • Annexure C of the IWT allows India certain agricultural uses
  • Annexure D allows India to build ‘run of the river’ hydropower projects (projects not requiring live storage of water).
• However IWT also provides,
  • Design specifications that India has to follow while developing HEPs.
  • India has to share the project design or alterations made to it with Pakistan.
  • Pakistan can raise objections, if any, within three months of receipt.
• IWT also allowed India to have a minimum storage level on the western rivers for conservation and flood storage purposes.

Permanent Indus Commission

• The treaty also required that both countries should establish a Permanent Indus Commission constituted by permanent commissioners of both sides.
• It functions as first stop for resolution of conflicts.
• It should meet at least once a year.

Dispute Resolution Mechanism

• The IWT also provides a three step graded dispute resolution mechanism.
  • First Step: Diputes can be resolved at Permanent Commission, or at inter-government level.
  • Second Step: For unresolved disputes, either side can approach the World Bank to appoint a Neutral Expert (NE) to come to a decision.
  • Third Step: If either party is not satisfied with NE’s decision or in case of disputes” in the interpretation of the treaty, matters can be referred to a Court of Arbitration (CoA).

India’s Stand on Dispute Redressal

• India has been abstaining from participating in the proceedings at the Permanent CoA.
• But India has been participating in the Neutral Expert’s proceedings.
• Reason: India alleges that Pakistan has violated IWT’s dispute resolution mechanism.
  • India says that in 2015, Pakistan asked for the appointment of a Neutral Expert. But later in 2016, Pakistan changed its request and requested that the CoA should examine the issue.
  • According to India, such parallel considerations on the same issues were not covered under any provision of the IWT.
• On July, 2023, the Permanent CoA, rejected India’s objections and confirmed its competence to resolve the dispute.
• But India has been still maintaining that it will not join the Pakistan-initiated proceedings at the CoA as the dispute is being already examined by a Neutral Expert under the framework of the IWT.

Indus Water Treaty: A Success

• Diplomatic Success: Rare example of successful transboundary water cooperation despite conflicts.
• India’s Concession: Grants 80% water to Pakistan, shows India’s cooperative upper riparian state role.
• Regional Stability: Maintained even amid heightened tensions (2001, 2008 and Uri/Pulwama incidents).

Reasons Behind India’s Demand for Treaty Modification

• Demographic and Environmental Pressures: Rapid population growth and climate change have intensified water needs, prompting India to seek treaty updates for sustainability.
• Clean Energy Goals: India’s focus on hydropower aligns with its climate and emission targets, highlighting the need for greater flexibility in river usage.
• Cross-Border Tensions: Ongoing terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir hampers cooperation and impacts India’s ability to utilise its river resources fully.
• Developmental Projects: India’s compliant “run-of-the-river” hydropower projects (ex. Ratle HEP) face Pakistani objections, exposing treaty limitations in addressing modern developmental needs.

Disputes and Legal Proceedings

• Hydropower Project (HEP) Disputes: Kishanganga on Jhelum and Ratle on Chenab.
  • Pakistan’s Action: Sought arbitration via the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) after initially suggesting a Neutral Expert.
  • India’s Position: Opposed PCA’s jurisdiction under the IWT, opting not to participate in proceedings.
• World Bank Intervention: Suspended dual processes (Neutral Expert and PCA) to encourage bilateral talks. Later, in 2022, both were reactivated at Pakistan’s request, despite India’s objections.

Divergent Perspectives and Challenges

• Riparian Interests: India (Upper Riparian) prioritises resource optimisation for development, while Pakistan (Lower Riparian) emphasises uninterrupted downstream flow for its water security.
• Environmental Gaps: The treaty lacks provisions to address modern climate challenges, such as changing glacial reserves and affecting consistent river flows.

Pakistan’s concerns

• Water Scarcity Concerns: Fears potential reduction in downstream flow due to India’s projects.
• Flow Maintenance: Emphasizes uninterrupted downstream flow maintenance, as upheld by the 2013 PCA ruling.
• “Water Terrorism”: Alleges India manipulates water resources politically, despite IWT compliance.

Proposed Modifications and Suggestions

• Equitable and Reasonable Utilisation (ERU): Following the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention, ERU principles could address climate change and water scarcity issues.
• Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): EIA protocols could ensure due diligence for HEP affecting shared waters, following the 2010 International Court of Justice precedent.
• Potential for Joint Projects: Article VII.1c of IWT allows collaborative engineering projects, potentially enabling joint responses to river variability.
• Enhanced Cooperative Mechanisms: Implementing MoUs and cooperative frameworks within IWT’s structure could improve dispute resolution and collaborative water management.

Significance of the Revision

• India’s call for treaty revision reflects evolving regional needs and could address both nations’ contemporary environmental, security, and developmental priorities.
• Revisiting it allows South Asia to promote sustainable resource-sharing and bolster regional stability.

Implications of Unilateral Withdrawal by India

• Regional Instability: Increased risks of conflict in a nuclear-armed region.
• Impact on Third-Party States: Potential spillover effects on China and Afghanistan.
• India’s Global Standing: Unilateral treaty withdrawal may affect India’s international reputation.

Path to a Sustainable and Cooperative Indus Water Treaty

• Incorporate Environmental Flows (EF): Align with global norms (e.g., Brisbane Declaration) to ensure the ecological health of rivers, supporting both biodiversity and sustainable water use.
• Climate Adaptation Provisions: Integrate clauses for adaptability to climate change, accounting for unpredictable water flow shifts and enhancing resilience to extreme weather impacts on water resources.
• Global Treaty Standards: Update the treaty to align with international frameworks, such as the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention, to address modern water-sharing and environmental standards.
• Optimizing India’s Allocation: Enable India to fully utilise its allocation rights over Western rivers, supporting development needs in Punjab and Rajasthan.
• Diplomatic Leverage: India could consider suspending PIC meetings to prompt serious re-negotiations