View News

Submit Query

21 May 2025

The-Indus-Waters-Treaty-Charting-a-Challenged-Stream-The-Attorney-General-Possible-Suggestion-of-Gradual-Suspension

The Indus Waters Treaty: Charting a Challenged Stream – The Attorney General's Possible Suggestion of Gradual Suspension

By Sura Anjana Srimayi

INTRODUCTION

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan, is widely recognized as one of the most enduring and successful water-sharing agreements in history. Facilitated by the World Bank, the treaty has weathered wars and political tensions, serving as a rare example of bilateral cooperation. However, recent geopolitical and environmental challenges have increasingly strained the treaty’s framework. There are indications that the Attorney General of India (AGI) may recommend a gradual suspension of the IWT—an unprecedented move with potentially significant consequences for regional stability, water security, and international law.

I. THE INDUS WATERS TREATY: STRUCTURE AND SIGNIFICANCE

A. Historical Context and Framework

The IWT divides the Indus River system into two sets:

Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) – Allocated to India.
Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) – Reserved primarily for Pakistan, with limited usage rights granted to India.

The treaty established a Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) to manage information exchange, monitor water usage, and handle disputes.

B. Treaty Strengths and Endurance

The IWT has stood the test of time, persisting through:

Three wars (1965, 1971, 1999).
Periodic cross-border violence.
Shifting governments and ideological regimes.

Its ability to provide a legal, institutional, and technical mechanism for cooperation marks it as a landmark achievement in conflict resolution over transboundary waters.

C. Dispute Resolution Framework

The treaty stipulates a three-tiered mechanism for addressing disagreements:

Bilateral Discussions via the PIC.
Neutral Expert adjudication.
Court of Arbitration under international oversight.

This multi-step process has facilitated the peaceful resolution of technical and political disagreements.

II. REASONS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION

A. Alleged Violations and Mutual Accusations

Both nations accuse each other of violating the treaty:

India's hydroelectric projects on western rivers (e.g., Kishanganga, Ratle) have raised concerns in Pakistan.
Pakistan alleges these dams could enable India to manipulate water flow during critical periods.

B. Technical Disputes Over Project Design

Much of the contention centers on interpretations of design parameters:

Height and capacity of dams.
Spillway structures and drawdown flushing capabilities.
Water flow timing and diversion patterns.

These disputes have been technically complex, often requiring third-party arbitration.

C. Inertia in Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Despite the treaty’s built-in mechanisms, recent disputes have:

Stalled in legal and technical limbo.
Led to competing cases: Pakistan has sought a Court of Arbitration, while India prefers a Neutral Expert.

This procedural tug-of-war has led to diplomatic fatigue and decreased trust in the treaty’s efficacy.

D. Deteriorating Bilateral Relations

Rising geopolitical tensions have further eroded goodwill:

Cross-border terrorism allegations.
Political rhetoric blaming external actors.
Militarization of the Kashmir region.

These factors reduce the feasibility of cooperative governance over shared natural resources.

E. India’s Strategic Calculus

India may view a gradual suspension of the treaty as:

A diplomatic tool to exert pressure on Pakistan.
A means to strengthen national water security amid climate change.
A domestic political move to signal strength and sovereignty.

III. IMPLICATIONS OF A GRADUAL SUSPENSION

A. Threats to Pakistan’s Water Security

Pakistan’s heavy reliance on the Indus system makes it highly vulnerable:

90% of its agriculture depends on Indus waters.
Suspension could lead to droughts, food insecurity, and economic instability.

B. Risk of Armed Conflict

Water scarcity could escalate into military confrontation, particularly in a volatile region:

Precedents exist where environmental stressors fueled conflict.
Water control could be perceived as a hostile act, especially by downstream users.

C. Reputational Damage to Both Countries

Unilateral suspension risks undermining both countries’ global standing:

The IWT is considered a model treaty by international institutions.
Breaching it could harm India’s image as a responsible regional power and Pakistan’s credibility as a cooperative riparian.

D. Regional Instability

The Himalayan river systems impact:

Afghanistan, China, and other South Asian neighbors.
Water diplomacy setbacks could ripple across regional hydropolitics.

E. Long-Term Distrust and Institutional Decay

Even a phased withdrawal could lead to:

Collapse of the PIC.
Reduced dialogue on future issues (e.g., climate adaptation, shared aquifers).
Enduring mistrust, hampering cooperation in other domains.

IV. PATHWAYS FORWARD: RENEWING DIALOGUE AND COOPERATION

A. Revitalizing the Permanent Indus Commission

India and Pakistan must recommit to:

Annual meetings.
Joint inspections and data sharing.
Neutral venues for technical discussions.

B. Establishing Technical Working Groups

Smaller, focused joint expert panels could address:

Design disputes.
Impact assessments.
Flow modeling and prediction.

Involving third-party engineers could enhance objectivity.

C. Increasing Transparency and Confidence-Building

Real-time data exchanges.
Joint hydrological monitoring stations.
Use of satellite and sensor-based technologies for verification.

D. Exploring Water-Saving Innovations

Beyond diplomacy, both countries must:

Improve irrigation efficiency.
Promote rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge.
Develop non-riverine water sources like desalination and wastewater recycling.

E. Seeking Constructive International Mediation

If bilateral dialogue fails, engagement from:

The World Bank (treaty guarantor).
Neutral third-party countries.
UN agencies specializing in water governance.

This could help break the deadlock without infringing sovereignty.

CONCLUSION

The Indus Waters Treaty is not merely a legal document—it is a lifeline for two nations with deeply intertwined histories and shared ecological futures. While the AGI’s possible suggestion for a gradual suspension may appear to serve short-term strategic interests, the long-term costs in terms of regional peace, economic stability, and international trust are substantial.

The solution lies not in dissolution but in reformation: strengthening institutions, deepening technical cooperation, and promoting shared stewardship of transboundary resources. As water crises loom across the globe, the IWT must not become a casualty of geopolitics, but rather, a renewed symbol of collaboration.

Only through sustained dialogue, mutual respect, and visionary leadership can the Indus—one of the world’s greatest rivers—continue to nourish life on both sides of the border.

Unlock the Potential of Legal Expertise with LegalMantra.net - Your Trusted Legal Consultancy Partner”

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this material in spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition In no event the author shall be liable for any direct indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from or arising out of or in connection with the use of this information Many sources have been considered including Newspapers, Journals, Bare Acts, Case Materials , Charted Secretary, Research Papers etc.