Introduction
The Indus Water Treaty (IWT), brokered by the World Bank was finally signed between India and Pakistan in 1960. The rights and responsibilities of both nations concerning the usage of the Indus River system’s waters were established and limited by the treaty. The treaty was regarded as one of the most prosperous international agreements, as it has withstood several strains, including hostilities, and furnished a structure for the advancement of irrigation and hydroelectric power for over 50 years. Dwight Eisenhower, a former US president, called it “one bright spot in a very depressing world picture that we see so often.” Nevertheless, recent geopolitical developments have raised concerns about the stability and effectiveness of the treaty, paving the way for discussions that the Indus Water Treaty 2.0 needs to be revived.
Background of the Indus Water Treaty
The foundation of the IWT is rooted in the 1947 partition, which led to the creation of Pakistan and India. The partition of the subcontinent not only divided land but also bifurcated the Indus River system between both countries. Traditionally, the Indus River system was primarily responsible for irrigating vast areas of the South Asian region. The Indus River system, which comprises of Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers, became a major issue, as it is vital for agriculture and drinking water for both the states.
To avoid the war, the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) was signed between the prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the president of Pakistan, Ayub Khan, after nine years of negotiations. The treaty was celebrated as a diplomatic victory not only by India and Pakistan but also by the international community since it showed that long-standing animosities could not prevent collaboration over essential resources.
Provisions of the Treaty
The Treaty gives control of the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) to India’s control and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan. Article II (1), states that India is the only country to have exclusive access to the eastern rivers after Pakistan’s specifically allowed usage. Likewise, Pakistan is the only country allowed to use the water from the western rivers following India’s approved usage. Article IV (14) of the IWT states that the water usage rights established from the underutilized waters of another country will not be gained over time. The IWT primarily resulted in the splitting of the rivers rather than their sharing of waters.
India was required to send water to Pakistan’s canals from its eastern rivers during a 10-year transition period, or until Pakistan could construct a canal system to use the waters of its western rivers. Pakistan continued to get this kind of water supply even during the Indo-Pak War of 1965. Despite the Indo-Pak conflict in 1965, India paid the entire money in 10 equal yearly payments. In the treaty, both states committed to sharing information and working together to make the best use possible of the water from the Indus River system.
Moreover, the Permanent Indus Commission, with a commissioner chosen by each country, is established under the treaty. It’s responsible for establishing a process to resolve disagreements and conflicts in the future over the application, interpretation, or violation of the treaty. The commission, which has withstood three wars, offers a continuous framework for dialogue and dispute resolution via inspection, data sharing, and visits. The commission must get together at least once a year to talk about possible conflicts and cooperative plans for the development of the Indus River system. Furthermore, the two commissioners will jointly submit an annual report on their activities to both governments, in accordance with Clause VIII (8).
Any intentions to build engineering work that will impact the other party must be communicated to the other party, and information regarding such works must be shared. Unaffected by the tensions on the subcontinent, the yearly inspections and data exchanges continue. Salal Dam was built following a mutual agreement between the two nations. Decades have passed since the Tulbul Project was cleared, despite extensive negotiations between Pakistan and India. An impartial technical expert or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is called upon for arbitration in circumstances of conflict or disagreement.
Violations of the Indus Water Treaty
However, recently, certain provisions of the treaty have been violated by India. One of the biggest violations of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is the building of the Shahpurkandi barrage by India on the Ravi River in the area of Pathankot. The primary goal of this new barrage is to irrigate farmland in the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir districts of Kathua and Samba and Indian Punjab.
India appears to be utilizing dam building as the upstream riparian state to restrict the flow of water to Pakistan; the Shahpurkandi barrage is expected to cut Pakistan’s water supply by 1,150 cusecs. Regrettably, Pakistan is at a disadvantage as it is a lower riparian state, and the fundamental provisions of the treaty are compromised as India has attempted to alter the flow of waters. This demonstrates India’s intention to illegally limit Pakistan’s legitimate water share. Moreover, India has built numerous dams to reduce the inflow of water in Pakistan, including Pong and Pandoh on the Beas, Thein on the Ravi, and Bhakra on the Sutlej.
Pakistan has filed a complaint with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects. Pakistan has raised concerns that the 330-megawatt Kishanganga project on the Jhelum River may cause the river that flows into Pakistan to become less navigable. The 850-megawatt Ratle Hydropower project would adversely affect Pakistan’s central Punjab’s agriculture by reducing the Chenab River’s water flow at Head Marala by 40%.
Just two days before a court of arbitration was to meet to discuss the dispute over India’s hydroelectric power projects, Ratle and Kishanganga, the Indian government decided to send a notice to Pakistan on January 25, 2023, asking for a modification to the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960. Although Pakistan’s immediate response to India’s move is dismissive, warning signals would undoubtedly be going off in Islamabad. Pakistanis will not be blind to the fact that India is increasing the ante and making it plain to them that the IWT is no longer untouchable. The message is clear: Pakistan should stop complaining about Indian projects on the Indus River if it does not want to jeopardize the treaty. If not, the entire treaty might collapse.
Measures to De-escalate Tensions Regarding IWT
The potential violations of the IWT by India could instigate regional instability. Water is an essential resource, and any attempt to diverge its flow could further deepen tensions between the two archrivals i.e. India and Pakistan. Therefore, certain measures should be taken to reduce tensions regarding the IWT between both states.
Both India and Pakistan should come to the negotiation table and diplomatically resolve their issues regarding the IWT. They should find different ways to resolve the issue peacefully and focus on sustainable water management. Moreover, a neutral third party such as the World Bank can play a pivotal role in facilitating discussions and mediating disputes. With the involvement of the third party, the chances to peacefully resolve the issue would increase as it would address the concerns of both parties fairly and transparently.
To gain additional legal and hydrological protections, Pakistan should consider ratifying the 1996 Water Convention. This would create a precedent that other South Asian nations would have to follow and it would also foster regional cooperation on water management. Both states should share weather forecasts, hydrological data, and information regarding planned water projects to build mutual trust and improve transparency.
Furthermore, both the states need an Indus Water Treaty 2.0. The upgraded version of the treaty would provide equitable and sustainable water sharing between India and Pakistan by inculcating flexible methods, improved dispute resolution procedures, and environmental protection mechanisms.
Why is the Indus Water Treaty 2.0 Necessary?
The Indus Water Treaty is considered one of the most successful international water cooperation treaties. However, recently, a question has rapidly come up about whether we need an “Indus Water Treaty 2.0,” due to various geopolitical developments, climate change impacts, and emerging water needs. Therefore, an updated version of the treaty could be necessary due to the following reasons:
Hydrological cycles in the Indus Basin are significantly altering due to climate change. The South Asian region is continuously experiencing extreme weather patterns, glacier melting, deforestation, and heat waves. All these factors severely affect water availability and distribution. As the original IWT did not anticipate such drastic changes in the flow of the river, an updated treaty could incorporate flexible mechanisms to adapt to these variations.
Moreover, significant advancements in water management and engineering technologies have emerged, since the IWT was signed. These technologies can help mitigate conflicts and promote efficient water use by offering better solutions for dispute resolution, data sharing, and monitoring of water usage.
The recent conflicts over projects like Kishanganga and Ratle have disturbed the robust dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, these conflicts underscore the need for more effective and faster resolution processes. A revised version of the treaty could refine these mechanisms to ensure timely and positive results for both parties.
The existing treaty primarily focuses on the distribution of water resources but it doesn’t include clauses for environmental protection. An IWT 2.0 could include clauses that emphasize tackling ecosystem well-being, pollution control, and equitable water management practices.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, which was established in 1997, is one of the major advancements in international water law since 1960. These new guidelines of the convention place a strong emphasis on collaboration and fair and appropriate use of water. If these ideas get incorporated into the revised IWT, they would become a source of promoting collaboration and reducing hostilities.
South Asia’s geopolitical environment has changed drastically, with growing animosity between Pakistan and India which severely impacts the bilateral ties. A new version of the IWT treaty might reduce the chances of conflict by acting as a tool to boost confidence-building measures (CBMs) and provide a framework for cooperation on matters related to water.
Conclusion
Despite more than six years of troubled relations, the Indus Water Treaty is the only treaty that still exists between India and Pakistan. However, the water relations between both states could be deteriorated due to India’s proposed changes. Furthermore, according to Article XII of the IWT, a single party can neither terminate nor modify the treaty without the consent of the other party. Therefore, the treaty makes it clear that to alter the IWT a modification treaty must be negotiated by both states and ratified by both.
In case India unilaterally asserts that it has altered the IWT and declines to comply with any of its terms, it would be considered a treaty violation and the treaty would still be enforceable in its original form. Moreover, the challenges of the 21st century are emerging rapidly, which include increased water demands, and environmental, and geopolitical tensions, necessitating an upgraded version of the IWT. By addressing the emerging challenges and taking the measures mentioned above, it is possible to strengthen the treaty’s sustainability, equity, and resilience, which would ensure ongoing peace and cooperation over shared water resources.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
