Jan 2023: india issued notice to Pak for modification of IWT
dispute over Kishanganga and Ratle
contravention of graded mechanism of dispute settlement envisaged by Article IQ of IWT
2015: Pak requested appt. of Neutral Expert to examine its technical objections to India’s Kishenganga and Ratle Hydo Electric Projects
2016: Pak unilaterally retracted this request and proposed that a court of arbitration adjudicate on its objections
Pak refused to discuss issue during 5 meetings of PIC during 2017-22
at Pak’s insistenc, WB initiated actions on both NE and CoA process
Present Objections by Pak
1000MW Pakal Dul Project
48WM Lower Kalani Project
624WM Kiru PRoject
Key provisions
equitable water sharing
3 western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) went to Pak
3 eastern rivers (Sutlej, Ravi, Beas) were portioned to India
however, 80% water conceded to Pak
both countries to establish a Permanent Indus Commission
India can create run of the river projects on western rivers
as per Article IX of IWT ∃ 3 step dispute resolution mechanism
Permanent Commission
Neutral Expert
Court of Arbitration
Analysis of IWT
one of most successful cases of conflict resolution, considering that the two countries have engaged in 4 wars
since inception in 1960, treaty has undergone disputes & conflicts, particularly concerning hydroelectric projects like SALAL in Chenab, Tulbul and Kishanganga on Jhelum
1984: India proposed to build Tulbul & Wular projects on river Jhelum
Pak protested these projects because they are violation of IWT and are storage facilities not allowed under the treaty
India however claimed it is abiding by Annexure D of IWT
these projects are either navigational facilities or run of the river projects (non consumptive usage)
India always argued: all its projects on western rivers are fully compliant w/ IWT provisions
highly technical treaty ⟹diverse interpretations from either side
does NOT incl. unilateral exit exit provisions i.e. neither country can unilaterally withdraw from treaty w/o mutual consent
significance, as ensures treaty remains in force unless both countries agree to terminate / amend
provides degree of stability & predictability to this treaty
geopolitical tensions as well as cross terrorism have impacted Indo Pak relations, esp concerning IWT
eg. after Uri Attack 2016, there were calls in India to reassess treaty or take tougher stand
the statement blood and water cannot flow together reflected the sentiment that India was considering the implications of IWT in context of security issues
soon after this, PIC also suspended from Indian side
after Pulwama Attack 2019, India first time threatened to cut off water supply to Pak from Indus river system
a way to use water as political weapon
Steps that can be taken
abrogation not prudent solution
decent way out → modify existing treaty in line w/ new hydrological reality
Article 12 of IWT says it may be modified from time to time via proper procedure
Need to establish some kind of institutional framework to address impact of climate change & other challenges that are so far not covered under IWT
need to update technical specifications and avoid diverse interpretations
india needs to adopt prudent & strategic outlook
should send signals for renewed changes, on the other hand must strongly communicate that Pak should stop sponsoring terrorism
if india fails to respond adequately, China can use this crisis as an opportunity to carry forward its strategy
”cooperating with the small to attack the big”
IWT example of possibility of peaceful coexistence despite troubled relationship
Treaty often considered uninterrupted & uninterruptible
has continued from 1960-2023
shows value that india has given to trans-boundary rivers as imp connector in the region
reflects the belief that IWT has potential for mutual prosperity and grid development and sub region
showcases imptance of diplomacy in resolving long pending disputes