NOTE4STUDENTS:

India-Pakistan’s Indus Water Treaty dispute saw a key development as the Neutral Expert upheld India’s stance. For UPSC aspirants, this topic is crucial for international relations and governance. It highlights how international treaties function, the role of legal mechanisms in dispute resolution, and the broader impact of climate change on shared water resources. Understanding past challenges under the IWT, including Pakistan’s opposition to Indian projects, will provide strong examples for exam answers. The key takeaway is the importance of cooperation, transparency, and dialogue in resolving such disputes. For UPSC preparation, focus on the treaty’s practical aspects, its resolution mechanisms, and environmental challenges to tackle questions on international treaties, conflict resolution, and water governance effectively.

PYQ ANCHORING & MICROTHEMES:

GS 2: Project `Mausam’ is considered a unique foreign policy initiative of the Indian Government to improve relationship with its neighbors. Does the project have a strategic dimension? Discuss. [2015]

Microthemes: Neighbourhood

Michel Lino, the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert (NE), declared he is “competent” to decide differences on hydroelectric projects under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), 1960. India welcomed the decision, emphasizing that all seven technical disputes fall within the NE’s jurisdiction.

THE CURRENT DISPUTE

The disagreement between India and Pakistan revolves around two key hydroelectric projects:

Kishenganga Project: Located on the Kishenganga River, a tributary of the Jhelum.
Ratle Project: Situated on the Chenab River.

The core issue lies in the differing interpretations of the dispute resolution mechanism under the Indus Water Treaty.

India advocates using a Neutral Expert to resolve the dispute, as stipulated in the IWT of 1960.
Pakistan insists on seeking adjudication from the Permanent Court of Arbitration (CoA) in The Hague.

Timeline of Dispute Development:

2015: Pakistan raised objections to the projects, initially requesting the appointment of a Neutral Expert.
2016: Pakistan withdrew its Neutral Expert request unilaterally and directly sought adjudication by the CoA, bypassing the treaty’s prescribed sequence in Article IX.
India subsequently requested that the dispute be referred back to a Neutral Expert, adhering to the treaty’s process.

Parallel Mechanisms and Legal Challenges

In 2022, the World Bank facilitated the simultaneous functioning of both a Neutral Expert and a CoA, creating parallel mechanisms.
India rejected the CoA as “illegally constituted” and inconsistent with the treaty’s provisions.

Engagement on Treaty Review

India and Pakistan are also engaging under Article XII (3) for a review and potential modification of the treaty:

January 2023: India formally issued a notice to Pakistan for reviewing and modifying the treaty.
August 30, 2024: Another formal notice was sent, but Pakistan has not responded, despite receiving four reminders from India.

Neutral Expert’s Decision

The World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert, Michel Lino, upheld India’s stance.

Affirmed his jurisdiction under Paragraph 7 of Annexure F of the IWT to address differences.
Recognized the Neutral Expert as the competent authority to resolve the seven disputed issues.

India’s Response

India welcomed the Neutral Expert’s ruling and criticized the CoA’s legitimacy.

Reiterated that the treaty does not allow parallel proceedings on the same matter.
The Ministry of External Affairs affirmed that the Neutral Expert was the appropriate body to address the technical disputes, including seven key differences raised concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle projects.

Next Steps

The Neutral Expert is now set to:

Evaluate the merits of each of the seven disputes between India and Pakistan.
Deliver a final decision based on the technical and legal considerations.

This phased resolution process will determine the future trajectory of the Indus Water Treaty and its governance.

ISSUES WITH THE TREATY & ITS IMPACTS

Issue	Details	Examples	Impact
Pakistan’s Frequent Opposition	Frequent objections over Indian projects, questioning adherence to treaty specifications.	– Opposition to Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (KHEP) on Jhelum River. – Opposition to Ratle Hydroelectric Project on Chenab River.	Delayed project timelines and increased costs, undermining developmental efforts.
Limitations of Judicial Recourse	India seeks resolution via Neutral Expert (spirit of treaty), while Pakistan uses Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) (literal interpretation).	– July 2023 PCA Verdict: Legally binding decision favoring Pakistan, rejected by India.	Lack of consensus undermines trust in the Treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism.
Strained Bilateral Relations	Treaty’s functioning influenced by geopolitical tensions.	– Suspension of biannual talks due to Pakistan’s support for state-sponsored terrorism.	Reduced cooperation, increasing risk of Treaty breakdown and potential water conflicts.
Impact of Climate Change	Altered precipitation, runoff patterns, and glacial melt affect water availability.	– Increased glacial melt in the Himalayas affects Indus Basin flows. – Unpredictable monsoons disrupt allocations.	Treaty fails to account for climate-induced variability, threatening equitable water sharing.
Third-Party Conflict Resolution	World Bank, as guarantor, lacks tools to determine whether changes in flow are illegal interventions or natural variations.	– Disputes during low-flow periods often lead to allegations of intentional blockages by India.	Misinterpretation of flow changes increases mistrust and unnecessary escalations.
Inadequate Data Sharing	Lack of regular data sharing limits understanding of river basin dynamics.	– Inconsistent hydrological data sharing on Jhelum and Chenab Rivers prevents effective management.	Reduces ability to make informed decisions and fuels disagreements.
Technical Nature of Treaty	Complex provisions enable diverse interpretations, leading to frequent disagreements.	– Ambiguities in compliance with Annexure D design standards for hydropower projects.	Delays developmental projects and creates recurring disputes between the two nations.

WAY FORWARD

Work Within the Treaty’s Framework: Both countries should make the best use of the treaty’s existing mechanisms to resolve technical issues fairly and effectively.
Be Open and Share Information: By sharing data about water flow and usage, both nations can build trust and solve shared problems.
Team Up to Manage the Basin: With climate change and growing populations putting pressure on the Indus basin, it’s essential for both sides to work together on saving water, controlling floods, and using resources responsibly.
Keep Talking and Stay Committed: Lasting solutions need both governments to stay focused on peaceful dialogue and cooperation rather than getting caught up in conflicts.

#BACK2BASICS : INDUS WATER TREATY

Indus Water Treaty: Overview and Key Provisions

The Indus Water Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, governs the water-sharing arrangements between India and Pakistan over the Indus River system. The Treaty emerged as a solution to water disputes following the partition of India in 1947, which divided the river system between the two nations.

Key Provisions of the Indus Water Treaty

Water Sharing Arrangement:
- The six rivers in the Indus Basin were divided as follows:
  - Western Rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab were allocated to Pakistan for unrestricted use, except for specified uses by India (e.g., non-consumptive, agricultural, and domestic uses).
  - Eastern Rivers: Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej were allocated to India for unrestricted use.
- Approximately 80% of the water flow was allocated to Pakistan and 20% to India.
Specific Rights for India on Western Rivers:
- Annexure C: Grants India rights for limited agricultural usage of waters from the western rivers.
- Annexure D: Allows India to build ‘run-of-the-river’ hydropower projects (HEPs), which do not involve live water storage.
  - India must adhere to detailed design specifications.
  - Pakistan must be informed about project designs and can raise objections within three months.
Storage Provisions: India is permitted minimal storage on the western rivers for conservation and flood control purposes.
Permanent Indus Commission
- A Permanent Indus Commission was established under the Treaty, comprising representatives from both nations.
- Functions: Act as the first step in resolving water-related conflicts and Mandate at least one annual meeting.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism: The IWT outlines a three-step graded dispute resolution mechanism:
- Permanent Indus Commission/Inter-government Talks: Initial disputes should be resolved through the Commission or inter-government dialogues.
- Neutral Expert (NE): Unresolved disputes may be referred to the World Bank, which can appoint a Neutral Expert to resolve specific issues.
- Court of Arbitration (CoA): If disputes involve treaty interpretation or dissatisfaction with the NE’s decision, they may be referred to a Court of Arbitration.