Indus Water Treaty

Even after 62 years of the agreement signed between Pakistan and India regarding the Indus Waters, a huge conflict still exists. On the one hand, Pakistan seeks ‘complete implementation’ to enforce the Indus Water Treaty. On the other hand, India is not resuming its construction work for the dam. What is the Indus River Treaty? Why Pakistan and India are unable to settle the dispute? Let’s discuss this issue in the article.

The flow of the Indus River

• The Himalayan mountains in Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, and Tibet are the primary sources of the waters that make up the Indus River system.
• Prior to entering the Arabian Sea south of Karachi and Kori Creek in Gujarat, they pass through the states of Punjab and Sindh.
• In Pakistan, 218.4 billion cubic metres of water are typically available yearly or 177 MAF.
• Developments over the past century have produced a vast network of canals and reservoirs that provide water for over 47 million acres (190,000 km2) in Pakistan alone by 2009, making it one of the largest irrigated areas of any one river system.
• Whereas there was only a narrow strip of irrigated land along these rivers previously, this has changed due to developments.

What was the Indus River Treaty?

• After nine years of negotiations, the Indus River treaty was signed on September 9, 1960. The treaty was a pact of water distribution of the Indus River and its tributaries.
• The treaty authorises the water of three eastern rivers, i.e., Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej, with a total annual flow of 33 million acre-feet to India. In contrast, the control over the waters of the ‘western river’, i.e., the Indus Chenab and Jhelum, with a total flow of 80 MAF, was authorised to Pakistan.
• If we categorise, India owns just 20% of the water carried by the Indus system, and Pakistan owns 80%.
• The treaty permits India to utilise the western rivers for limited irrigation and unrestricted use for power generation, fish culture, navigation etc.
• This led to India building projects over western rivers.
• Pakistan is concerned that India could potentially initiate floods or droughts in Pakistan, especially at the time of war.
• This issue was brought up again after India dumped 170,000 cusecs into the Ravi during the Pakistan floods of 2022. This incident had already resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 people and the displacement of 30 million people before the release.
• An Indo-Pakistani water dispute in 1948 was based on the river system's water rights. Despite fighting in multiple military engagements since the treaty's ratification in 1960, India and Pakistan have not been involved in water warfare.
• Most conflicts and disputes have been resolved through the legal channels allowed by the treaty's framework.
• Even though experts believe that the Indus Waters Treaty needs to update some technical details and broaden its scope to accommodate climate change, it is still regarded as one of the world's most successful water-sharing initiatives.

The Dispute between India and Pakistan

There have been conflicts with the pact, and both sides have accused one another of breaching its provisions.

1. Complain to the World Bank - Pakistan complained to the World Bank in 2016 over the Indian Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric power projects built in Jammu and Kashmir. India subsequently requested that impartial experts assess the plants, claiming that Pakistan's concerns were only technical and did not call for establishing an arbitration tribunal (as Pakistan has taken it to an arbitration court). Following the conclusion of negotiations between the two nations over the specifics of the pact, the World Bank granted India permission to move forward with the projects.
2. The Tulbul Project - After Pakistan raised objections, the Tulbul project—a navigation lock-cum-control anatomy at the mouth of the Wular Lake, located on the Jhelum from Anantnag to Srinagar and Baramulla—was put on hold in 1987. The government recently decided to revisit this suspension without considering Pakistan’s protests.
3. Kutch - The Rann of Kutch is traversed by Pakistan's Left Bank Outfall Drain (LBOD) project in Gujarat, India. India was consulted after construction began. India has raised an objection because this violates the IWT. Given that the lower riparian state is in India, all pertinent information must be provided. The state of Gujarat to faces the threat of flooding.
4. Uri attack - Recently, there has been a decreasing trend in the bilateral ties between Pakistan and India. Prime Minister Modi said that blood and water could not flow in the same direction after the assaults in Uri, sending a message to Pakistan that its encouragement of terrorism across the border will cause India to reconsider its lenient approach to the IWT. Many experts think Pakistan will benefit more from the deal than India.
5. Criticism by Modi - The IWT has also been criticised for being signed by the then-prime minister Nehru on behalf of India. He wasn't the head of state, and the country's president should have signed the treaty at that time.
6. According to the IWT's terms, India does not utilise all the water it is entitled to. Unused water from the river Ravi flows into Pakistan in amounts of about 2 million acre-feet (MAF).
7. Pulwama attack - The Indian government announced that all water flowing into Pakistan through the three eastern rivers would be transferred to Haryana, Punjab, and Rajasthan for various purposes in the wake of the Pulwama attacks in 2019.
8. India has taken the following actions to halt this flow and use all of its water allotment under the Treaty:

• Shahpurkandi Project: This will aid in producing electricity for Jammu, Kashmir, and Punjab.
• Ujh Multipurpose Project: This will build a reservoir on the Ujh, a tributary of the river Ravi, to store water for irrigation and power production.
• The second link from Ravi Beas Ujh: The GOI has designated this a National Project. To accomplish this, a barrage must be built across the Ravi River, diverting water through a tunnel link to the Beas Basin. This is intended to stop extra water from entering Pakistan.

Pakistan’s accusations

• Two upcoming hydroelectric projects on the Jhelum and Chenab rivers are the subject of the dispute.

• Pakistan objected to the Kishenganga project's design, claiming it would reduce the amount of water entering the nation by 40% while also violating IWT rules.

• Pakistan wants the project's planned storage capacity for the 850 MW Ratle power station to be decreased from 24 million cubic metres to eight million cubic metres.

India’s Reaction

• However, India said that none of the treaty's clauses was broken by the two projects.
• According to government sources, New Delhi allegedly accused the World Bank of taking a "non-neutral" position that seemed to favour Pakistan.
• India demanded that neutral experts investigate the disagreement by IWT regulations, and the World Bank refused to comply. India adopted a "very harsh stand" against the World Bank.
• According to a Union water resources ministry representative, the World Bank had 20 days to respond to India's request but did nothing. However, he added, "They quickly agreed to Pakistan's demand for a CoA."
• The most recent argument began when the World Bank decided to move forward with two parallel mechanisms at the same time: Pakistan's demand for a CoA and India's need for impartial experts.
• India referred to it as a “legally untenable” decision that went against the IWT's rules.
• The IWT is now more stressed as a result of this dispute.

Conclusion

It is believed that the argument has been ongoing for several decades. The Indus Treaty, signed in the 1960s, which outlined how Pakistan and India would divide water resources, is responsible for this conflict. Because it prevents cooperation and progress, this war has affected both nations. It is essential that steps be taken to stop the conflict from escalating further to lessen the threats it poses. The use of dialogue and mediation is one of the most effective strategies to resolve the conflict, while there are other options. Renegotiating the treaty is another option. This agreement should anticipate tendencies that could lead to future disputes.