What does the IWT provide for?
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank.
It gives India control over three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) and Pakistan control over three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab).
India can use western rivers for non-consumptive purposes like hydropower, but under strict conditions.
It includes mechanisms for dispute resolution: bilateral talks, neutral expert review, and arbitration through an international court.
How has it withstood wars between India and Pakistan?
Despite three major wars (1965, 1971, 1999) and many tensions, the treaty has continued to function.
Regular annual meetings between India and Pakistan’s water commissioners have taken place even during conflicts.
Its strength lies in being a technical, depoliticized agreement focused on water-sharing, separate from broader political disputes.
How have disputes surrounding India’s hydropower projects been arbitrated?
Projects like Kishanganga and Ratle dams have led to disagreements.
Pakistan fears these projects give India too much control over water.
The Kishanganga case went to arbitration; India was allowed to continue, with some flow limits imposed.
The Ratle case created a procedural conflict; both arbitration and neutral expert paths were eventually allowed.
India joined the neutral expert process but boycotted the arbitration — showing legal routes are still active but politically sensitive.
Can third parties mediate?
Yes — the treaty allows for neutral experts and arbitration panels approved by both countries.
This is different from third-party mediation on political issues like Kashmir, which India opposes.
So, while India prefers bilateral talks, the treaty itself permits structured third-party roles for technical disputes.
How have other countries handled cross-border river disputes?
Europe: Hungary and Slovakia had a dispute over a Danube dam project; the ICJ helped resolve it.
Southeast Asia: Mekong River tensions between countries like Laos and Vietnam are managed through dialogue in a river commission.
In both cases, legal frameworks and cooperation helped avoid conflict and manage disputes.
Risks of withdrawing from the IWT
There’s no exit clause — it’s a legally binding international treaty.
Unilateral withdrawal would harm India’s global image and may bring in diplomatic backlash.
It could hurt India’s credibility in water-sharing talks with other neighbours like Nepal and Bangladesh.
Ethically, cutting water can hurt millions of ordinary people in Pakistan, especially in dry seasons.
What should be done?
India should fully use its rights under the treaty, including hydropower projects, but within the treaty’s limits.
Withdrawal would weaken India’s legal position and might provoke global criticism.
The treaty is a symbol of cooperation even in a hostile relationship — ending it could harm future peace prospects.
India can show leadership by upholding international norms and ensuring water remains a shared, sacred resource — not a weapon.
COMMENTS