The IWT is the only agreement between India and Pakistan that has stood the test of time, through wars and terrorism.
Using water as a weapon is never a good idea. It would be so much better for both countries to treat the IWT as an instrument for collaboration on climate action in the fragile Himalayan region.
By: Editorial
January 30, 2023 06:10 IST
India’s January 25 notice to Islamabad seeking modification of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty is the fallout of a longstanding dispute over two hydroelectric power projects on the western rivers — the fully operational Kishenganga on the Jhelum, and Ratle on the Chenab. Under the treaty, along with the Indus, these two western rivers were allotted to Pakistan for its unrestricted use. India could use the waters of these rivers for “non-consumptive use”, including run-of-the river hydel projects. The Kishenganga was constructed after the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in India’s favour. But Pakistan continues to object to this and the Ratle dam. Delhi, reportedly, has sought to modify the treaty after Pakistan refused intergovernmental negotiations on the matter. While that is the first stage provided under the treaty for resolving disputes, the next is the request to the World Bank by the aggrieved party for the appointment of a neutral expert. A court of arbitration is constituted as the last resort. This graded approach to dispute resolution has served the two countries well.
The IWT is the only agreement between India and Pakistan that has stood the test of time, through wars and terrorism. Underlying the treaty is the principle that water does not recognise international boundaries and upper riparians have a responsibility to lower riparians. While the treaty does provide for modification “from time to time”, it has to do so by means of “a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments”. As reported by this newspaper, in 2021, a parliamentary committee had asked for a renegotiation of the IWT, given present day exigencies such as the impact of climate change on water availability in the Indus basin. Given the record though, it is questionable if the two countries today have the political will and the inclination to arrive at an agreement to replace the IWT for the sharing of the waters.
More likely, the issue will fester and grow into another active pressure point in India-Pakistan relations. This conclusion is inescapable given how already, on the Pakistani side, accusations are made with increasing frequency that India has “turned off the water”, and on this side, the view is growing that India was been too generous in the IWT. Recall Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remark in the aftermath of the 2016 Uri attack that “blood and water cannot flow together”, even though how this threat might be implemented is not clear as it would be plain dangerous to build big dams to stop the western rivers from flowing across the LoC in a seismologically active region. Using water as a weapon is never a good idea. It would be so much better for both countries to treat the IWT as an instrument for collaboration on climate action in the fragile Himalayan region.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd