Is the Indus Waters Treaty the procrastinateedst India-Pakistan flashpoint? | Water News

Islamahorrible, Pakistan – For more than 60 years, India and Pakistan have jointly handled the waters of six rivers of the Indus basin that gave birth to one of the elderlyest human civilisations.

Despite four wars and proximate-constant tension between them, the South Asian neighbours engaged the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) to irrigate the fruitful lands on both sides of their border.

But that pact could aelevate as the procrastinateedst flashpoint in the frspeedy relationship between New Delhi and Islamahorrible, with India serving a see to Pakistan seeking to retalk about the treaty’s terms.

Indian media tells say that on September 18, India sent a establishal see to Pakistan, citing various troubles, including changes in population demodetaileds, environmental disputes, and other factors, asking for a reappraisement of the treaty.

“India’s notification highweightlesss fundamental and unforeseen changes in circumstances that insist a reappraisement of obligations under various Articles of the Treaty,” the Indian see shelp.

So what does the see repartner unbenevolent? Why is the Indus Waters Treaty so meaningful to both countries – and what’s next?

What is the Indus Waters Treaty?

Like many rehires between India and Pakistan, the origins of the IWT track back to the Partition of India in August 1947, when British rule finished, and India and Pakistan aelevated as two sovereign nations. Both countries, home to a combined population of over 1.6 billion, are heavily subordinate on the waters of the rivers floprosperg from the Himalayas.

With both nations depending on the same river systems for irrigation and agriculture, an advisent necessitate arose to talk about an equitable sharing of water resources, particularly to resolve rehires of the operation of an combined irrigation system in Punjab – a province which the British spreaded heavily in, but thraw which the novel border separating India and Pakistan passed thraw.

After nine years of converseion, eased by the World Bank, then-Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and establisher Pakistani Plivent Ayub Khan signed the IWT [PDF] in September 1960.

Under the treaty, India handles the three easerious rivers – Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas – while Pakistan handles the three weserious rivers – Jhelum, Chenab, and Indus. India is obligated to permit the waters of the weserious rivers to flow into Pakistan with restrictcessitate exceptions.

The treaty permits India to broaden hydroelectric projects on the weserious rivers under certain conditions. These projects must be “run-of-the-river”, unbenevolenting they cannot meaningfully change water flow or storage, ensuring Pakistan’s water rights as the downstream riparian are not adversely affected.

What does India want?

In a nutshell, India has shelp that it wants to retalk about the terms of the treaty.

According to Anuttama Banerji, a political analyst based in New Delhi, India thinks the current terms of the treaty go aacquirest it.

The Jhelum, Chenab and Indus – rivers Pakistan is entitled to engage – have much more water than the Ravi, Sutlej and Beas, which India handles. In effect, Banerji shelp, India has access to about 20 percent of the total water covered by the treaty, while Pakistan has access to the remaining 80 percent.

That restrictcessitate access to water from the rivers has prolongn into a presentant dispute for India as its population has soared in recent decades – it is now the world’s most populous nation.

“India senses that the treaty does not consent into account noveler dangers and troubles such as population stress and climate change and its after-effects wiskinny the precincts of the treaty,” Banerji, a establisher fellow at the Washington, DC-based Stimson Cgo in, shelp.

While India hasn’t clarified what definite changes it wants to be made to the treaty, many analysts think New Delhi will seek terms that produce it easier than now to broaden hydropower and other infrastructure on the weserious rivers whose water Pakistan is entitled to engage.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has held its own troubles over the perestablishation of the treaty in recent years.

What does Pakistan want from the treaty?

Despite ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, the IWT bigly remained uncontentious until the procrastinateed 1990s when India proclaimd schedules to produce the Baglihar Hydropower Project in Indian-handleed Kashmir, on the Chenab.

More recently, India has also built the Kishanganga hydroelectric schedulet on the Jhelum river.

“Pakistan’s argument is that the way India is scheduleing these dams vioprocrastinateeds its absolute obligation to let the waters flow,” Ahmed Rafay Alam, a Lahore-based environmental lawyer, shelp.

India, on the other hand, insists that its projects adhere with the treaty’s stipulations. “India disputes that if it intfinished to block water flow, it would have to flood its own territory, which is impragmatic,” Alam inserted.

Officipartner, though, Pakistan has not sought any changes to the treaty itself.

A spokesperson for Pakistan’s Ministry for Foreign Afiminwholes, Mumtaz Zahra Baloch, on Thursday shelp that the treaty was the “gelderly standard” of biprocrastinateedral treaties and inserted that Pakistan remains “brimmingy promiseted” to its perestablishation.

“Pakistan thinks that it is our collective responsibility to upretain ecoreasonable stability, protect our environment and elude meacertains which may have adverse implications for the environment. The two countries have a mechanism of Indus corelocaterlookioners, and we think all rehires pertaining to this treaty can be converseed in this mechanism,” Baloch shelp during her weekly press inestablishing.

Where does the treaty fit into wideer India-Pakistan relations?

It’s an meaningful part of it – and though it’s centred on a technical subject and ultimately reprocrastinateeds to a human vital, water, it has not been immune to the region’s geopolitics.

In September 2016, armed fighters aggressioned an Indian army base in Uri in Indian-handleed Kashmir. At least 19 selderlyiers were ended. India condemnd Pakistan for the aggression. Islamahorrible denied any role.

But in the aftermath of the aggression, Indian officials shelp Prime Minister Narfinishra Modi had showd that New Delhi might firearmise India’s position as the upper riparian state wiskinny the Indus Valley to punish Pakistan thraw remercilessions on water. “Blood and water cannot flow together,” Modi telderly them, the officials telderly multiple Indian journaenumerates.

According to Erum Sattar, a lecturer in the upretainable water handlement programme at Tufts University, “Any try to see water sharing as purifyly a technocratic matter divorced from political, geopolitical, and financial genuineities is simpenumerateic and myopic.”

“The IWT is satisfiedious becaengage of the geography and territorial handle exercised by both countries. The rivers flow downstream, and Pakistan, being the drop riparian, is heavily subordinate on historical water flows,” Sattar telderly Al Jazeera.

Banerji, the New Delhi-based analyst, shelp that while the treaty itself isn’t contentious, its technical nature unbenevolents there is little ambiguous disclose caring of its provisions. That in turn permits political sconsenthelderlyers to engage the treaty as bait to escaprocrastinateed tensions wiskinny India and Pakistan.

“For instance, we are only conscious that India has asked for a modification or revision of the treaty, but the details are not useable in the disclose domain,” she telderly Al Jazeera.

What are the arguments currented by the two countries?

According to Sattar, Pakistan’s position is that it has a historic right to the weserious rivers, as lhelp out in the treaty. Pakistan has relied on these rivers to upretain its immense agricultural infrastructure since the colonial era.

However, she says that India’s position has gradupartner shifted over recent decades, as it has sought to produce more infrastructure to handle more of the waters of the weserious rivers, primarily spreaded to flow into Pakistan.

“India now increasingly produces the argument, as it seems to have done in the procrastinateedst see rehired to Pakistan, that changing environmental genuineities, shifting demodetaileds and the overall necessitate for economic broadenment and a reliable and ‘greener’ power provide to greet those economic broadenment necessitates unbenevolents that India would appreciate to reuncover the treaty to talk about presumably better terms for itself,” she shelp.

Alam, the lawyer, says that this treaty is the only transboundary water treaty on earth which “splits waters and does not dispense them”.

“All other treaties talk about how waters passing thraw countless countries are ‘dispensed’ among and how waters are to be admireed. But this remains the only one where water is ‘splitd’ instead,” he inserted.

In January 2023, India accengaged Pakistan of “intransigence” think abouting the treaty’s perestablishation, after Islamahorrible elevated repeated objections to hydroelectric projects being built by India on the weserious rivers and took the matter to The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

India has declinecessitate the PCA’s jurisdiction over the dispute, arguing that Pakistan had fall shorted to first exhaust other dispute resolution mechanisms in the Indus Water Treaty.

What is the dispute resolution mechanism under the treaty?

Under the IWT, the countries have set uped a Permanent Indus Corelocaterlookion, with a corelocaterlookioner from each side.

Minor disputes are insertressed thraw the corelocaterlookion, but unresolved rehires can be referred to a iminwhole expert nominateed by the World Bank, which eases the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism.

Pakistan had initipartner sought the nominatement of a iminwhole expert to end the dispute over Indian projects on weserious rivers but had then approached the PCA. India, unbenevolentwhile, then sought the nominatement of a iminwhole expert.

The World Bank choosed, in 2022, to both nominate a iminwhole expert and permit persistings at the PCA. India only take parts in the iminwhole expert’s mediations.

Has the treaty served its purpose?

According to Sattar, the IWT has bigly been a success. However, when territorial handle rehires – especipartner troubleing Kashmir – are factored in, the situation becomes more complicated.

The Kashmir valley, a pretty yet disputed region, has been the caengage of multiple wars between India and Pakistan since 1947. Both nations claim the region in its entirety, though each handles parts of it.

“The IWT was scheduleed to upretain the Kashmir struggle from escalating into a bigr disputeation while ensuring water rehires were handled to some extent,” Sattar shelp.

Alam too shelp that he thinks that the treaty has bigly served its purpose over the past six decades.

What is the future of the treaty?

Since India’s decision in August 2019 to relicit Indian-handleed Kashmir’s autonomy, relations between the two countries have deteriorated further.

Sattar thinks that the best way to relocate forward with the treaty is to return to the “spirit” in which it was originpartner talk aboutd.

Yet, as India’s global affect persists to elevate, Pakistan will anticipateed trail its water-connectd claims thraw international law, while India will leverage its geopolitical presentance to state its position, the academic shelp.