Recently, a controversy has emerged between Pakistan and India over the Kishanganga and Ratle Hydropower Projects. This article will explore the India-Pakistan Water Issue and IWT in detail, focusing on three key dimensions.
First, we will examine the background of the issue. Next, we will analyse the fundamental water dispute between India and Pakistan, focusing on two primary aspects: one related to the hydropower projects and the other concerning the existence and integrity of the treaty.
Finally, we will explore the potential consequences of this issue and consider the possible options available to Pakistan.
India-Pakistan Water Conflict
There are six main rivers flowing from India to Pakistan: the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. These rivers have numerous tributaries, including the Neelum. After the partition of 1947, disputes arose between Pakistan and India over the allocation and usage of these rivers. Consequently, in 1960, the Indus Waters Treaty (also known as the Indus Basin Treaty) was signed between the two countries, with the World Bank mediating the agreement.
Rivers Allocation under Indus Water Treaty
The treaty allocated the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers to Pakistan, while the Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas rivers were allocated to India. Additionally, the treaty granted India limited rights to generate hydropower on the rivers allocated to Pakistan, using the “run-of-the-river” principle, for rivers.
The Indus Waters Treaty remains one of the most enduring agreements between Pakistan and India since their separation in 1947. Despite various challenges, including wars in 1965 and 1971, the treaty has withstood significant geopolitical and seismic changes.
Rise of BJP and threat to IWT
However, the treaty now faces existential threats due to chronic issues. These challenges intensified with the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India. Since 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has adopted a more aggressive stance against Pakistan, both diplomatically and in terms of the Indus Waters Treaty. In 2016, Modi famously declared, “Blood and water cannot flow together,” highlighting India’s hardening position.
Kishanganga & Ratle Dispute
While the treaty has historically managed water conflicts between the two countries, tensions have escalated significantly in the past decade. Two major issues have emerged in this context: the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects. Both projects are being constructed on rivers allocated to Pakistan under the treaty. While the treaty allows India to develop hydropower projects on these rivers, it is subject to certain terms and conditions.
When the Kishanganga project (on the Neelum River) and the Ratle project were proposed, India informed Pakistan as required under the treaty. However, Pakistan raised objections to these projects, citing violations of the treaty’s provisions.
Dilemma of Conflict Resolution
There are three mechanisms under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) to resolve disputes. Pakistan first approached the commission established to address such disputes. However, the commission failed to resolve the issue. In 2016, Pakistan approached the World Bank, requesting it to refer the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, arguing that the projects in question violated the IWT.
India, on the other hand, maintained that the matter was technical rather than legal and therefore warranted the appointment of a neutral expert as outlined in the treaty. This difference in interpretation led to contrasting positions from both countries starting in 2016.
Since the World Bank does not have original jurisdiction to independently resolve such disputes, it advised both nations to address the issue bilaterally and present a unified proposal. However, the conflict continued to escalate.
In 2022, the World Bank took the unilateral step of initiating both processes simultaneously. For India, it appointed a neutral expert, while for Pakistan; it referred the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This parallel process led to objections from India, which argued that only one process should be initiated as per the treaty. India’s reluctance to refer the case to Court of Arbitration was based on the fact that the decision of the Court of Arbitration is legally binding, whereas the opinion of neutral experts is not. This would allow India to gain more time and delay proceedings.
Currently, both the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the neutral experts are addressing the matter, and proceedings are ongoing. However, India is boycotting the legal proceedings and continues to support the neutral expert process.
India’s Proposal to Revise IWT
In response to the formation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration by the World Bank at Pakistan’s request, India proposed revising and amending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in January 2023. India’s reasoning for this proposal is based on three key arguments:
- Opposition to Third-Party Involvement: India’s broader foreign policy stance opposes the involvement of third parties in bilateral conflicts. India views Pakistan’s decision to approach a third party as a violation of this principle, even though the treaty itself permits such involvement. This position aligns with the BJP’s long-standing criticism of Nehru-era policies, including the Kashmir issue and the IWT. The BJP seeks to eliminate third-party involvement in matters like the IWT or UN resolutions. Revising the treaty would, in their view, prevent similar situations in the future.
- Changing Climatic Conditions: India argues that climatic changes over time have altered river patterns and water distribution, making it necessary to update the treaty to reflect current realities. The treaty, signed in 1960, is now over 64 years old and, according to India, requires adjustments to accommodate these evolving environmental conditions.
- Perceived Unfairness to India: Many scholars in India support the BJP’s position that the treaty is disproportionately favourable to Pakistan, granting it significant control over water resources while India receives only a smaller share. The BJP views the treaty as an unfair legacy of the Congress Party and Nehru’s early leadership, similar to Article 370, which was revoked in the name of nationalism and ensuring a fairer deal for India. The BJP believes revising the treaty would correct these historical injustices.
On the other hand, Pakistan does not oppose revising the treaty outright but is resistant to altering its fundamental principles. Pakistan favours addressing specific loopholes that have emerged over time rather than making sweeping changes. When India proposed revising the treaty in 2023, Pakistan did not fundamentally reject the idea but remained cautious.
Diplomatic negotiations are ongoing, but both countries faced election years in 2023, limiting immediate progress. In the coming years, however, revising the treaty may emerge as a significant point of contention between the two nations.
Implications of the current dispute
Lets analyse what could be the possible implications if Pakistan agrees or refuse to revise the treaty.
If Pakistan Agrees to Revise the Treaty:
Pakistan faces a significant challenge. If it moves toward revising the treaty, India is likely to demand an increased share of water. Additionally, India may oppose the involvement of a third party, such as the World Bank, the Court of Arbitration, or neutral experts, as provided under the treaty. Instead, India may prefer bilateralism over tri- or multilateral negotiations.
If Pakistan concedes to India’s demand to eliminate the role of a third party, it will become increasingly difficult to persuade India on other matters during bilateral talks. For instance, India has refused to discuss the Kashmir issue for over a decade. Excluding third-party involvement in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) would further reduce Pakistan’s leverage in negotiations. Therefore, Pakistan cannot afford to accept this demand.
If Pakistan Refuse to Revise the Treaty:
On the other hand, if Pakistan refuses India’s demands, the problem lies in India’s leverage. India has several options, including treaty violations or withdrawal. The BJP government could potentially withdraw from the treaty without facing significant international backlash, given India’s rising global influence. If India were to withdraw, it would have catastrophic consequences for Pakistan’s economy and agriculture.
Pakistan is thus caught in a dilemma. Refusing to revise the treaty could provoke India, leading it to stop water flow as the upper riparian state. Conversely, agreeing to revisions might force Pakistan to accept unfavourable terms, such as excluding third-party involvement or altering the water distribution ratio, which would be untenable for a water-scarce country like Pakistan.
Way Forward
- Political Stability: A stable government with public support and legitimacy is essential. Institutions should collaborate with the government rather than compete against it, supporting its policies. Unfortunately, during elections, no political party included discussions about addressing water issues with India in their manifestos. Furthermore, there was no mention of the kind of relationship they would establish with India. While the government aims to maintain cordial relations with India, the specifics of how this will be reflected in policy remain unclear.
- Home-Grown Solutions: Pakistan must devise its own solutions instead of relying solely on talks and discussions. It is crucial to prepare for worst-case scenarios by developing policies to address water conservation, adapting agriculture to reduced water availability due to climate factors, and potential treaty revisions. Farmers and individuals involved in agriculture must be made aware of these impending changes and encouraged to adapt to the evolving circumstances.
- Garner International Support: Pakistan must ensure that its scholars produce internationally recognized publications to advocate for the country’s stance. These publications should highlight how water-related aggression by India poses a threat to Pakistan’s existence. By garnering international support, Pakistan can negotiate more effectively with India, as nations operate within a global context.
Conclusion
Hydro politics between Pakistan and India is a crucial issue, as it is likely to shape the future of relations between the two countries for the foreseeable future. It is a determining factor not only for bilateral relations between Pakistan and India but also for interprovincial relations within Pakistan. This is why it is essential to focus on the issue and approach it with caution.
Leave a Reply