news
For over six many years, the treaty has stood as a uncommon testomony to the resilience of rules-based diplomacy in South Asia. Nonetheless, amid escalating tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad, the way forward for the pact now seems extra precarious than ever.
What does the treaty entail?
The origins of the IWT could be traced to the Partition of India in August 1947, which marked the tip of British colonial rule and the emergence of India and Pakistan as two sovereign nations. Each international locations, dwelling to a mixed inhabitants of over 1.6 billion, are critically depending on the waters of the rivers flowing from the Himalayas. Given their shared reliance on these river programs for agriculture and irrigation, an pressing want arose to barter an equitable sharing of water assets.
After practically a decade of negotiations brokered by the World Financial institution, former Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and former Pakistani President Ayub Khan signed the treaty in September 1960.
Underneath the treaty, India was granted unrestricted rights over the three japanese rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej, whereas Pakistan was given unique management over the three western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, which collectively comprise the lion’s share of the basin’s water reserves. Though the western rivers are allotted to Pakistan, India retains restricted rights to make use of their waters for “non-consumptive” functions, together with home use, irrigation, and hydroelectric energy era.
The treaty additionally establishes a strong institutional framework for cooperation and dispute decision. Disputes are resolved by a three-tiered course of: first, earlier than the Everlasting Indus Fee (PIC), comprising a delegation of water specialists from each international locations; then a World Financial institution-appointed impartial professional; and finally, a discussion board of arbitrators.
Why have there been prior makes an attempt to change its phrases?
The design parameters of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydropower tasks in Jammu and Kashmir — the previous already a commissioned mission — have been a bone of rivalry between the 2 international locations for years now. Whereas Pakistan contends that the design of those constructions permits India higher management over the shared water assets, India maintains that the tasks adhere to the treaty’s provisions on equitable water use.
In 2013, the Hague-based Everlasting Courtroom of Arbitration permitted India to continue its projects on the Kishenganga however barred using ‘drawdown flushing’ if it induced the water stage to drop under the dam’s lifeless storage capability. The method entails releasing accrued water from a reservoir to flush out silt and sediment, thereby guaranteeing the optimum functioning of hydropower tasks. It will also be used to manage the move of rivers downstream.
In 2015, Pakistan requested that the World Financial institution appoint a impartial professional to ascertain working procedures for the Kishenganga and Ratle tasks. Though India endorsed the request, Pakistan later withdrew it unilaterally and, in 2016, proposed referring the dispute to arbitration.
Nonetheless, India characterised the arbitration proceedings as “illegally constructed”, arguing {that a} dispute can’t be escalated to the third stage—arbitration—with out first exhausting the 2 earlier mechanisms outlined within the treaty. The World Financial institution initially agreed, warning that parallel proceedings earlier than a impartial professional and a court docket of arbitration might lead to “contradictory outcomes.” Nonetheless, in 2022, it facilitated the appointment of each a impartial professional and a md for the court docket of arbitration. Whereas Pakistan has participated in each proceedings, India has boycotted the Hague-based arbitration.
As talks reached an deadlock, New Delhi issued a proper discover to Islamabad in 2023 below Article XII(3) of the IWT, searching for the treaty’s “modification” for the primary time. India cited vital modifications because the treaty’s signing, together with shifts in inhabitants, evolving water necessities, the rising menace of climate-related disasters, and cross-border terrorism.
Final yr, sources told The Hindu that the PIC would not convene additional conferences till either side mentioned renegotiating the 64-year-old treaty. It was additionally learnt that, regardless of India sending a number of notices, Pakistan had not supplied any “passable response.”
Is unilateral suspension of the treaty permissible?
The IWT can’t be altered unilaterally. Article XII stipulates that its provisions “could infrequently be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that function between the 2 Governments.” It additional clarifies that the treaty can solely be terminated by a “duly ratified treaty” agreed upon by each states.
The time period “maintain in abeyance,” as utilized by India in its letter to Pakistan, is neither recognised in worldwide regulation nor talked about within the Vienna Conference on the Regulation of Treaties (VCLT), 1969, the principal treaty governing agreements between states. “The VCLT doesn’t use the phrase ‘abeyance’; it makes use of the time period ‘suspension,’ which permits a rustic to droop the operation of a complete treaty or part of it. Suspension is distinct from termination. I consider that when India used the phrase ‘abeyance,’ it supposed to imply ‘suspension’ somewhat than termination of the IWT,” Dr. Prabhash Ranjan, professor at Jindal International Regulation College, instructed The Hindu.
Article 62 of the VCLT permits a treaty to be repudiated if there was a “basic change of circumstances” from these present on the time of its conclusion. Though India isn’t a celebration to the VCLT and Pakistan has signed however not ratified it, the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice (ICJ) within the Fisheries Jurisdiction Cases (United Kingdom v. Iceland; Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland) affirmed that Article 62 codifies customary worldwide regulation and is due to this fact binding no matter formal ratification.
India seems to be invoking this precept, as its letter states that “basic modifications within the circumstances” require a “reassessment of obligations” below the IWT. It cites elements corresponding to “considerably altered inhabitants demographics,” the “have to speed up clear power growth,” and Pakistan’s alleged failure to behave in “good religion.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Ranjan identified that ICJ rulings have set a excessive threshold for what qualifies as a “basic change in circumstances”. Within the 1997 Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project dispute between Hungary and Slovakia over the development of a dam, Hungary argued that political and financial shifts, together with the specter of environmental catastrophe, supplied enough grounds to terminate the treaty. Nonetheless, the ICJ rejected these arguments, noting that the political and financial modifications weren’t instantly linked to the treaty’s main goal — joint power manufacturing. Moreover, any potential environmental dangers have been deemed not totally unforeseeable and due to this fact, couldn’t be thought-about a “basic change of circumstances.”
“The exception below Article 62 is confined to modifications within the circumstances present on the time of the treaty’s conclusion; it doesn’t prolong to subsequent exterior developments. A extra prudent course for India can be to droop the IWT as a countermeasure below worldwide regulation, invoking Pakistan’s persistent violation of India’s territorial sovereignty by its sponsorship of terrorism”, Dr. Ranjan stated.
How is the suspension more likely to have an effect on Pakistan?
Greater than 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture and round a 3rd of its hydropower era rely on the waters of the Indus basin. Nonetheless, specialists say that India lacks the huge storage infrastructure and in depth canal programs wanted to withhold tens of billions of cubic metres of water from the western rivers.
“The infrastructure India possesses consists largely of run-of-the-river hydropower vegetation, which should not have the capability for large-scale storage. Nonetheless, the actual impression lies within the uncertainty over water move, which might severely have an effect on Pakistan’s predominantly agrarian economic system. If India begins regulating the move utilizing its present infrastructure, Pakistan might expertise vital disruptions, significantly in the course of the upcoming summer time season when water availability is already at its lowest,” Dr. Happymon Jacob, affiliate professor on the College of Worldwide Research, Jawaharlal Nehru College, instructed The Hindu.
A senior government official earlier told The Hindu that India will discover “choices that it has by no means thought-about” below the IWT, corresponding to redesigning its hydroelectric tasks to extend water storage capability and deploying ‘drawdown flushing’ of its reservoirs. The abrupt launch of huge volumes of water with out prior warning might doubtlessly trigger vital injury downstream in Pakistan.
“Amongst non-kinetic measures, that is seemingly the harshest step India might take. So far as subsequent steps are involved, it’s unlikely that the worldwide neighborhood will exert substantial strain on India, as Pakistan would first have to take credible steps to handle India’s considerations relating to its sponsorship of cross-border terrorism,” Dr. Jacob stated. He additionally identified that Pakistan would discover it troublesome to safe intervention from the World Financial institution except India is prepared to cooperate.
Revealed – April 26, 2025 08:19 pm IST
