Why in News?

The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between India and Pakistan in the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack has reignited debates on whether shared natural resources like water can be used as tools of geopolitical leverage.

This raises concerns about legality, sustainability, and international credibility from India’s standpoint.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background - The Indus Waters Treaty
• Resilience of the Treaty
• India’s Hydropower Projects and Emerging Tensions
• Legal and Diplomatic Dimensions
• Risks of Unilateral Withdrawal
• Way Forward
• Conclusion

Background - The Indus Waters Treaty:

• Partition and river dependency:
  • The partition in 1947 left Pakistan (downstream of the Indus basin) heavily reliant on river flows that originated in India.
  • In 1948, India's brief suspension of water flow created a regional crisis.
• Mediation and agreement:
  • World Bank-brokered agreement led to the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960.
  • The IWT allocated the eastern rivers (the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) to India, and the western rivers (the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) to
  • It allowed India certain non-consumptive uses (of western rivers) such as generating hydropower, provided they meet stringent design and operational conditions.

Resilience of the Treaty:

• Durability despite conflicts:
  • Survived three wars (1965, 1971, 1999), diplomatic breakdowns, and cross-border skirmishes.
• Success attributed to its technical nature and institutional mechanisms:
  • Permanent Indus Commission.
  • Dispute resolution via bilateral consultations, neutral experts, and Court of Arbitration.

India’s Hydropower Projects and Emerging Tensions:

• Strategic shift post-terrorism:
  • Calls to revise the IWT intensified after the Uri (2016) and Pulwama (2019) attacks.
  • India views water as a potential strategic leverage against state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan.
• Contentious projects: Kishanganga (Jhelum) and Ratle (Chenab) hydroelectric projects became flashpoints - Pakistan alleges violation of treaty; India asserts compliance.
• Legal proceedings:
  • Kishanganga: The Court of Arbitration (2013) allowed India’s diversion with ecological safeguards.
  • Ratle:
    • India chose a neutral expert, Pakistan preferred the Court of Arbitration.
    • The World Bank, tasked with administering the treaty’s dispute process, paused both requests to avoid parallel proceedings.
    • However, it allowed both to go forward, prompting India to boycott the arbitration proceedings while participating in the neutral expert process.

Legal and Diplomatic Dimensions:

• Third-party mediation and Simla agreement:
  • India cites Simla agreement (1972) for bilateralism.
  • However, IWT predates Simla and allows third-party adjudication by consent.
• International precedents:
  • Danube River disputes (Hungary-Czechoslovakia, Hungary-Slovakia) resolved through ICJ rulings and cooperation.
  • The Mekong River Commission in Southeast Asia helps manage hydropower-related tensions.

Risks of Unilateral Withdrawal:

• International repercussions: Unilateral exit would -
  • Undermine India’s image as a responsible power.
  • Trigger World Bank intervention.
  • Alarm neighbours like Nepal and Bangladesh.
• Legal constraints:
  • IWT is a binding treaty; no withdrawal clause.
  • The Vienna Convention permits withdrawal only under exceptional conditions.
• Ethical considerations:
  • Water as a human right, not a weapon.
  • Retaliatory cuts may lead to humanitarian crises in Pakistan’s downstream communities.

Way Forward:

• Leverage within the legal framework: India should -
  • Maximise its permitted usage under IWT.
  • Continue legitimate hydropower projects within treaty parameters.
• Preserving the spirit of cooperation:
  • IWT is a rare model of cooperation between adversaries.
  • Withdrawing could undo diplomatic gains, and set dangerous precedents for resource conflicts globally.

Conclusion:

While strategic considerations are valid in geopolitics, the Indus Waters Treaty underscores the principle that shared resources demand shared responsibility.

In a volatile region, India’s strength lies in demonstrating moral and legal leadership - choosing cooperation over coercion.