Should water be a weapon?

History of the IWT

• The treaty was born out of necessity, not goodwill, after the Partition of British India in 1947 left the rivers of the Indus basin awkwardly distributed.

• The World Bank intervened in 1948 when India briefly halted water supply to Pakistan, causing alarm across the region.

• The IWT was signed in 1960, allocating the eastern rivers to India and the western rivers to Pakistan, while allowing India certain non-consumptive uses such as generating hydropower.

IWT’s Durability and Insulation

• The treaty has withstood three major wars (1965, 1971, 1999), repeated border skirmishes, and diplomatic breakdowns.

• Its technical framing and the insulation it provides from political upheavals have enabled it to function despite deep mistrust between the two countries.

• The treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism includes bilateral consultations, neutral expert analysis, and, if needed, mediation through a Court of Arbitration.

India’s Hydro-Infrastructure Development Projects

• India’s renewed scrutiny of the IWT has come in the wake of terrorist attacks claimed by Pakistan-based groups.

• India’s increasing hydro-infrastructure development in Jammu and Kashmir has been flashpoints of contention between both countries.

• Pakistan argues that the design features give India excessive control over water flows, potentially threatening Pakistan’s agricultural and ecological security.

• Pakistan has invoked the IWT’s adjudicatory mechanisms, resulting in the pause of both requests to avoid parallel proceedings.

• This precedent confirms that the legal architecture of the IWT is not only active but likely to be triggered again if India were to withdraw from the treaty.

India’s Role in International Water Treaties (IWT)

• India has long advocated for bilateral resolution of disputes with Pakistan, particularly in the context of third-party mediation.

• The International Water Treaty (IWT) predates the Simla agreement and includes provisions for third-party adjudication.

• Neutral experts and arbitrators are treaty-sanctioned mediators, not external interlopers.

• India’s participation in the Kishanganga arbitration and the neutral expert process for Ratle acknowledges this reality.

• The invocation of the Simla agreement cannot nullify what the IWT permits.

Examples of Water Tensions in Europe

• Post-World War I, disputes over the Danube river were largely managed through negotiated settlements under the League of Nations framework.

• The Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros case between Hungary and Slovakia emphasized the importance of legal frameworks over unilateral action.

• The Mekong river dispute in Southeast Asia demonstrates the importance of legal and diplomatic channels in managing disputes.

Risks of withdrawing from the IWT

• Unilateral withdrawal would likely invite international condemnation, undermine India’s regional power image, and alarm neighbours in the Himalayan basin.

• The IWT is a binding international treaty with no provision for withdrawal.

• Water is a basic human right and its use as an instrument of retaliation raises ethical questions.

What should be done?

• India has the right to maximize its permitted usage under the IWT, including building hydropower projects within the treaty.

• Abandoning the treaty would erode legal high ground and may place India on the defensive internationally.

• The IWT stands as a rare monument to cooperation in an otherwise fractious relationship.