Indus Water Treaty Review needed to J&K’s benefit
One strong take-away for India, of the gruesome Pahalgam terrorist attack, apart from striking at the terrorist hubs in Pakistan, is that the contentious Indus Water Treaty (IWT) between India and Pakistan has come in for a fresh debate; and the much-needed review to the benefit of Jammu and Kashmir. If a recent Indian Express report titled “First time, Pakistan says willing to discuss Indus Waters Treaty terms” dated May 15, 2025, Pakistan has for the first time since inception of the Treaty in 1960 hinted at a relook into it.
The cold-blooded killing of 26 innocent tourists in the serene valley of Pahalgam is an unpardonable act. It has raised questions on a series of issues such as the efficacy of the Centre’s Kashmir policy vis-à-vis Pak-sponsored terrorism and in relation to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and most importantly, the IWT.
After the deplorable Pahalgam terrorist hit, it was natural that the IWT came into immediate focus. To put the Treaty into abeyance, which guides the distribution of water of Indus system of rivers between India and Pakistan, was one of the strongest measures announced by the Government of India. Whenever a controversy arose between the two bordering nations particularly in relation to sponsoring terrorism into India, voices had been raised questioning the continuation of the IWT in its presence form.
However, this time around, the Government quickly acted on this front even before objections could be raised from other quarters concerned. And rightly too.
Although distribution of water resources between two countries has a strong human aspect, Pakistan has not only overlooked this key factor but has time and again been muscle flexing on this issue. This is despite Islamabad being at the receiving end.
Engineering the killing of unarmed tourists in Pahalgam, ostensibly the first of its kind incident targeting tourists in over three-decade long terrorism in Kashmir, has resulted in loss of face for Pakistan. On the contrary it gave India moral right to strike in whatever manner it deemed fit.
This moral edge which India has in this latest bout of Indo-Pak conflict has also emerged from the manner in which Pakistan has flouted the very preamble of the IWT, a pact brokered by the World Bank after a nine-year long painstaking effort. Flouting the preamble meant giving other party the advantage to take action according to their suitability. This is the underlying spirit of the preamble.
What does preamble of IWT state?
“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, being equally desirous of attaining the most complete and satisfactory utilisation of the waters of the Indus system of rivers and recognising the need, therefore, of fixing and delimiting, in a spirit of goodwill and friendship, the rights and obligations of each in relation to the other concerning the use of these waters and of making provision for the settlement, in a cooperative spirit, of all such questions as may hereafter arise in regard to the interpretation or application of the provisions agreed upon herein, have resolved to conclude a Treaty in furtherance of these objectives, and for this purpose have named as their plenipotentiaries...”
The treaty sets out a mechanism for a coordinated approach on the distribution of water of the Indus system of rivers. Under the agreement governing six common rivers, all water of the eastern rivers- Sutlej, Beas, and Raavi which comes to about 33-million-acre-feet (MAF) annually, can be used by India in an unrestricted fashion.
The waters of western rivers - Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab - amounting to around 135 MAF annually have been assigned largely to Pakistan. The IWT has given India the right to generate hydroelectricity through run of the river projects on the western rivers subject to specific criteria for design and operation. Natural corollary is that India cannot store the water by constructing reservoirs or diverting it through irrigational network beyond the specified limit.
A cursory look at the IWT preamble brings out that it was entirely based on mutual trust and cooperation with goodwill and friendship being the key words. Whereas India, through the decades, stood by these commitments despite domestic compulsions, Pakistan faltered on every available opportunity.
In many ways, Pahalgam terrorist attack has given India the moral authority to raise questions on the veracity of the IWT with the passage of time and prevailing ground realities particularly the demography related changes. Pakistan by expressing willingness to renegotiate the Treaty, has acknowledged this fact.
Perhaps, Pakistan has realised, though inordinately delayed, that interfering in India’s internal matters through sponsoring terrorism, was fraught with dangerous consequences that could come in the shape of a water- related conflicts. After all large portions of that country are dependent for water supply on Jhelum, Sindh and Chenab.
One of the key features of the Treaty is that it has provided for modifications that could be affected from time to time. However, it has to be done by a duly ratified treaty arrived at for the purpose between the two governments. India, under such circumstances, is well within its right to seek modifications.
Ostensibly, realising long-term ramifications of suo-motu alteration of water distribution mechanism by India, Pakistan’s readiness at re-negotiation is not surprising. It remains a fact that it will require a long-term planning for India to create storage capacity and irrigational network to prevent the rivers’ flow into Pakistan. Nevertheless, such a possibility cannot be ruled out in future which has Islamabad worried.
How the Treaty works:
It has a mechanism for cooperation and information exchange between the two countries regarding their use of the rivers, known as the Permanent Indus Commission, which has a Commissioner from each country. The Treaty also sets forth distinct procedures to handle issues which may arise: “questions” are handled by the Commission; “differences” are to be resolved by a Neutral Expert; and “disputes” are to be referred to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal called the “Court of Arbitration.”
The World Bank, though a signatory to the Treaty, has a limited role which is more procedural in nature. Its role in relation to “differences” and “disputes” is limited to the designation of individuals to fulfil certain roles in the context of Neutral Expert or Court of Arbitration proceedings when requested by either or both of the Parties.
The recent areas of disagreement have been over two hydroelectric power plants which India has been building. Both the dams are being constructed in Jammu and Kashmir.
The latest disagreement concerns the design features of the Kishenganga (330 megawatts) and Ratle (850 megawatts) hydroelectric power plants. The former was inaugurated in 2018 while the latter is still under construction. The World Bank is not financing either project.
The two countries disagree over whether the technical design features of these two hydroelectric plants contravene the Treaty. The Treaty designates these two rivers, as well as the Indus, as the “Western Rivers” to which Pakistan has unrestricted use with some exceptions. Under the Treaty, India is permitted to construct “run of the river” hydroelectric power facilities on these rivers, subject to constraints including design specifications as provided for in.
The latest developments have weakened Pakistan’s case and the retributive measures taken by India are well in-place and within New Delhi’s moral authority. What else if Pakistan destroys the spirit of IWT’s preamble.
India has begun work to boost reservoir holding capacity at two hydroelectric projects in the Himalayan region of Kashmir. This would entail desilting of the “run of the river” projects’ reservoirs in order to increase their holding capacity, as an immediate measure. Even holding-back the water supply for short-duration through closing gates of the dams can have serious effect on Pakistan.
