Editorial: Revisit Indus Treaty

Maintaining the treaty in its current form is no longer feasible given present-day scenarios, and thus requires revision

It is time Pakistan gave up its intransigent approach and agreed to a review of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), a six-decade old bilateral agreement that has survived several tumultuous events, including wars and diplomatic tensions. While fully safeguarding the spirit of cooperation that defines the landmark treaty, India wants the two countries to revisit the terms of the agreement in view of the changed circumstances that require an honest re-assessment of the obligations. New Delhi has sent a strongly-worded follow-up notice to Islamabad seeking negotiations to review the agreement, citing legitimate ecological and economic concerns. Maintaining the treaty in its current form is no longer feasible given present-day scenarios, and thus requires revision. India has justifiably labelled the treaty as ‘one-sided’ and suggested that various provisions need reassessment. The two countries are locked in a dispute over two run-of-the-river power projects — the fully operational Kishanganga on the Jhelum, and the under-construction Ratle project on the Chenab. The IWT asks India to “let flow” the waters of these western rivers to Pakistan. At the same time, the treaty allows India to use these rivers’ waters for non-consumptive purposes, including projects that use the natural flow of these water bodies. Pakistan, however, has objected to these projects, despite the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration giving India a go-ahead for Kishanganga. Islamabad has also refused intergovernmental negotiations. Mediation by a World Bank-appointed neutral expert would have been the next step under the IWT’s dispute resolution mechanism.

The Indus system of rivers comprises three Eastern Rivers — Ravi, Beas and Sutlej and their tributaries —and three Western Rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab and their tributaries. As per the treaty, India controls about 20% of the total water of the Indus system while Pakistan gets about 80%. It is argued that the treaty is unfair to India, given the country’s larger size, population and growing water needs. Also, given the political and military tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad, some analysts argue that the treaty gives Pakistan a strategic advantage over India. They claim that India should have more leverage over the western rivers, particularly in times of conflict or heightened tensions. Considering their mutual reliance on precious natural resource, the two nations must realise that the IWT’s survival is integral to ensuring regional water security. Intransigence and one-upmanship have made a bilateral settlement elusive. The World Bank-brokered treaty, which has withstood several ups and downs in history, should not be allowed to become hostage to bilateral hostilities. In the surcharged atmosphere post-Uri attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had publicly stated that India would not allow even a “drop of water” to go waste into Pakistan. There were even calls for scrapping the agreement to teach Pakistan a fitting lesson. However, the government did well to resist such a temptation as it would have besmirched the country’s image.