Against the flow

Pakistan has nothing to complain about the Indus Waters Treaty

India’s move to seek modification of the six-decade-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) needs to be viewed strictly in the context as spelt out in the missive handed over to Islamabad on this issue. It has categorically attributed it to Pakistan’s constant “intransigence” in implementing this time-tested water-sharing pact by raising repeated, and often pointless, objections to development projects on the Indian side that do not violate the World Bank-brokered treaty. The specific cases in point are the Kishenganga and Ratle hydro-power projects. What has irked India is the initiation by the World Bank, on Pakistan’s insistence, of two sets of dispute-settlement procedures — appointing a neutral expert and a court of arbitration — simultaneously, disregarding the three-level graded grievance redress mechanism envisaged in the treaty. The typical procedure involves bilateral negotiations, appointing a neutral expert, and reference to the court of arbitration, in that order. Parallel multiple reviews seem ill-advised because these can potentially complicate the matters by coming out with contradictory verdicts.

The IWT, regardless of its merits or demerits, has stood the test of time, remaining intact even during full-fledged wars between the two neighbours. This is largely because India, the upper riparian, has seldom infringed this treaty. In fact, Pakistan has been getting more water than its due share because of India’s inability to consume its quota of water for want of adequate infrastructure to store and utilise it. Many in India believe that the IWT is inherently flawed because it divides the rivers between the two countries — giving the three west-flowing rivers to Pakistan and the other three east-flowing rivers to India — without any regard to the amount of water available in these rivers. As a result, about 80 per cent of the water stock of the Indus Valley rivers has gone to Pakistan.

However, till now India has seldom officially, or formally, referred to this anomaly at any forum. Even now, while seeking an amendment to the treaty, it has refrained from mentioning any specific issues to be revisited. Clearly, New Delhi’s intention in reopening the IWT is not to alter it in any substantial manner but to prevent Pakistan from constantly pin-pricking India on frivolous grounds. In fact, Jitendra Singh, minister of state in the Prime Minister’s Office, has minced no words in pointing out that Pakistan habitually makes needless allegations against India on water-sharing issues, though New Delhi has always stood by the treaty. His statement makes sense, given the number of times Islamabad has raised objections to the Kishenganga and Ratle projects despite neutral technical experts having approved them.

The latest such episode was in 2010, when the Kishenganga project was referred to the court of arbitration but the verdict came in 2013 in India’s favour. Several vital developmental projects in India have suffered inordinate delays because of frivolous complaints by Pakistan. India, on the other hand, seems to have shown remarkable restraint in dealing with such sensitive issues. Even now External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has sought to tone down the narrative by describing it as a “technical issue” to be first dealt with under the existing grievance redress mechanism before taking it forward for further action. The ball is now in Pakistan’s court to de-escalate the tension over this matter.