India's action has shown Indus Waters Treaty is not sacrosanct

INDIA ANNOUNCED several punitive steps on Pakistan after the massacre of 26 men in Pahalgam, which included placing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. Pakistan, which described India’s action on the IWT as an ‘act of war’, has announced stoppage of trade, held all bilateral treaties in abeyance and banned Indian flights from using its air space in retaliation.

It is important to note that the meeting of IWT Commissioners has not happened since 2022 when the 117th meeting was held in Islamabad. Rather, India has sent letters to Pakistan proposing a revision of the treaty as per the Article 12 (3) of the treaty, which reads: “The provisions of this Treaty may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments”. Pakistan has not responded to India’s proposal to revise the treaty, which is necessitated by the growing population in Kashmir, climate change and the need for harvesting hydroelectricity.

Pakistan has approached the Court of Arbitration over its objection to the 330 MW Kishanganga project on a tributary of the Jhelum and the 850 MW Ratle project on the Chenab, both in Kashmir. India has refused to participate in the arbitration and has said that it would like ‘neutral experts’ to adjudicate on the issue as per the treaty. As per the IWT, water from the western rivers of the Indus system―Indus, Jhelum and Chenab―is given to Pakistan, but India can have hydroelectric projects and utilise the water.

Keeping the IWT in abeyance means India will not follow the obligation that the treaty imposes on India. This will affect agriculture in Pakistan, which is dependent on the Indus river system, especially the irrigation canals in Punjab. Pakistan receives 80 per cent of its water needs from the Indus. While India in the short term can regulate the flow, it needs infrastructure to divert the water that may have severe impact on water flow to Pakistan.

As a response to India’s action, Pakistan has said that it will hold all the treaties and agreements that it has signed with India in abeyance. There are several significant agreements like the Lahore declaration and the agreement on prohibition of attacks on nuclear installations and facilities.

Pakistan’s decision to abrogate the 1972 Simla Agreement is not going to have any impact on India. Unlike the IWT, Pakistan has violated several provisions of Simla Agreement, notably Article 1 of the treaty that prevents unilateral alteration of the situation and prevent organisation, assistance and or encouragement of any acts that is detrimental to maintenance of peaceful relations―the attempt to occupy the Siachin glacier in 1982, cross-border terrorism since 1990, Pak armed forces’ occupation of hills in Kargil in 1999, Pakistan-based JeM cadres hijacking an Indian aircraft from Kathmandu in 1999, the attacks on Parliament and Kashmir state assembly in 2001, Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 and most recently Uri and Pathankot attacks of 2016. It has been engaged in hostile propaganda against India, the most recent being the speech by Pakistan army chief Gen Asim Munir.

The IWT is regarded as a resilient treaty that has survived India-Pakistan bilateral temperature. Many a time chief ministers of Jammu and Kashmir have pointed out that Kashmir’s interest was sacrificed when India signed the IWT with Pakistan. India’s action this time has demonstrated that the treaty is not sacrosanct if Pakistan does not take action against terrorism emanating from its soil.

Pakistan may approach the International Court of Justice and the World Bank which brokered the IWT. But that would be a lengthy process. Given the agricultural and water need of Pakistan, such a time-consuming legal action would only further its water woes.

―The author is research fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.