Indus Water Treaty: What lies in the future?

Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 19 Sept 1960 between India and Pakistan under mediation provided by the World Bank. As a political compromise between Pakistan and India seemed improbable the US and UK decided to pressure both into signing onto a technical treaty which could outline the claims and limits of both nations on the flow of the water. Over the years it was touted at the most successful and unequal water sharing agreement where the upper riparian nation only made claim to a minor portion of the river’s waters.

The Indus basin was categorized into two groups of rivers. With the Eastern Rivers (Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej) being controlled by India and the Western Rivers (Indus, Chenab and Jhelum) being controlled by Pakistan.

Many still blame Nehru for this treaty in India for only allowing India to control less than 20% of the Indus’ waters, while many in Pakistan still decry the unequal nature of the treaty in directly awarding a set of rivers to India as that may eventually cause droughts in the parts of Pakistan which are mainly fed by the Eastern rivers. However, the main calls for renegotiations of the treaty have originated in India which at this point has put it into ‘abeyance’. In this post we will go through the main areas of dispute in the treaty and what the possible solutions for the current impasse may be.

Points of Dispute

Hierarchy of Dispute Resolution

One of the major points of contention between India and Pakistan in the Indus Waters Treaty is which method of dispute resolution should be utilized. India opines that a neutral expert is best equipped to provide a judgement on any dispute as the treaty was created as a technical document divvying up the river system. As the technological leaps which have occurred since the signing of the treaty are such that only a technical expert could decipher which portions of a dam project are adhering to the spirit of the treaty and which are not. Pakistan opines that the court of arbitration remains the best method for the settlement of any dispute as it ensures both parties adhere to the limitations set on dam construction and that water use in the upper riparian are limited to irrigation, power production and no excessive storage occurs at any dam project.

India claims that the entire treaty has been used by Pakistan as a tool to delay and alter any project on the Indus. To the point that even the Eastern Rivers which India has had complete claims over remains underutilized. This had gotten to a point in 2016 where over a dam project both the neutral expert and the court of arbitrations were consulted with both providing contradicting verdicts.

Distribution of Water

The Indus Waters Treaty remains the most unequal treaty in terms of water distribution. The main claim on the Indian side has been that due to a change in population on their side of the border their requirements for water have risen but the treaty remains largely in the past. The water flowing through the Indus River Systems has only declined as times goes on. Therefore, a new bargain needs to be struck to make the treaty viable for the future for either sides.

Pakistan affirms that population has risen more significantly across their side of the border, therefore their claims over the waters are more important now. Furthermore, they claim that giving over the entire claim over the Eastern Rivers to India was a massive failure of their predecessors. Pakistan therefore also asks claims over a portion of the Eastern Rivers to ensure that there isn’t any drought caused on their side due to a complete redirection of the Eastern Rivers as stated in certain claims by Indian politicians.

Colonial Nature of the Treaty

Perhaps the least commented on portion of this treaty is its inherently colonial nature. The treaty was negotiated in the good offices of the World Bank an American Institution, it was clearly an objective of the USA and UK’s governments to ensure the viability of their client states in Pakistan. Even today the governments of the US and UK are deeply involved in the selection Engineer Members, and Legal Members which are involved in the dispute resolution portion of the treaty. It would future proof the treaty further if these positions were devolved to the main participants of the treaty.

Through Indian eyes this treaty is almost written by a colonial master on unequal terms. Now, that India is no longer in a state of Ship-to-mouth existence it needs to shed these clearly colonial features of the treaty. Pakistan might find this portion of the treaty not as excusable due to the fact that the member states with these influence have often been close allies of theirs through formal treaties such as (SEATO, CENTO or the Baghdad Pact) and both the powers sent aircraft carriers (HMS Eagle and USS Enterprise) to intimidate India in 1971.

Possible Future Scenarios

At this point the chances of an Amended treaty are going to require deft negotiations from the Pakistani side as many projects on the Western Rivers in Indian territory have already begun to spring up. Therefore, the chances for a “Permanent Abeyance” or “Total Disregard” remain most likely.

Indus Waters Treaty Amended

This is an ideal scenario in which all that track-2 level diplomacy leads to fruitful results. Where the treaty is examined by both sides and amended to ensure that the points of conflicts that led to its abeyance are sufficiently allayed such that they won’t lead to any future suspension or abeyance.

In this scenario the water distribution either changes nominally (giving both sides minor claims to waters from both set of rivers while maintain a similar distribution of water) or remains the same. However, the main dispute is resolved which is the hierarchy of dispute resolution. In a scenario where Pakistan has the upper hand it would ensure the court of arbitration is the highest, in the case where India holds all the cards as the upper riparian it will be the neutral expert.

If the amendments are ambitious it could even tackle the colonial nature of the treaty excising any influence of former colonial powers from the treaty. Making it not just future proof but even more closely aligned to the Indian policy affirmed in the Shimla Agreement.

Permanent Abeyance

The Indian government finds this scenario particularly enticing. As it isn’t directly suspending the treaty while side stepping all its cumbersome dispute resolution mechanism. It can easily ignore any rulings from International Courts as they have little to no jurisdiction over the country. It allows the state to have a good level of ambiguity in decision-making which many bureaucrats appreciate. It leaves a card up their sleeve which they can use to entice Pakistan during a future crisis.

On the Pakistani side this is a dreaded option as it removes any influence they might’ve had over the construction on the Indian side. Projects which previously might’ve been delayed and altered for decades will be suddenly out of their influence. But the most devastating will be the lack of data sharing which would affect the planning of crop seasons. This uncertainty could’ve been reduced to a degree if a larger number of dams were to be constructed on the Indus however as a “hard” state Pakistan rarely has any resources to spare for non-military projects of this magnitude.

Total Disregard

The most extreme of all options would be a total disregard for the treaty. Instead of acting like the treaty is only in abeyance which means the claims over the Rivers remain static in principle. Meaning India has limited influence over the Western Rivers. In this scenario a large build up of projects begins on both the set of Rivers. A number of river connection, dams, and reservoir projects spring up to capture water from the Indus. Large tunnels of 30-40kms are built up to join river water of the Indus towards Uttarakhand and Rajasthan through canals ensuring that more than 20% of the waters from the Indus River System never reach across the border.

Any construction of dams or reservoirs on the Western Rivers would tilt the world towards this scenario. As once the construction is complete no incumbent government will ever have any incentive to adhere to the old treaty ever again. Meaning once a project is constructed it will become a permanent fixture, Once a river is redirected to a canal it cannot be turned off, because anyone who turns it off will commit political suicide.

Projects like the Chenab-Beas link tunnel are inching up towards this reality. Where Pakistan’s claims over the Western Rivers are diluted through rather small and insignificant projects over long periods of time. In its current state the link tunnel doesn’t even transport 1 MAF of water from the Chenab to the Beas, however, it demonstrates a principle that Pakistan holds no influence over Indian construction on its claimed river waters.

Conclusion

Every day that passes without any open negotiation between the governments of India and Pakistan on the issue of the Indus Waters Treaty is a day where we move closer towards the scenario of “Total Disregard”. Personally, I wouldn’t want this issue to get to a point where Indian leaders jockey to claim larger and larger portions of Pakistan’s waters for the sake of their local constituencies and jingoistic sentiments. The effect this treaty’s abeyance has over Pakistan isn’t as large as most would assume due to a short-to-medium term effects on the Indus’ waters however in the long term it might reduce millions into poverty due to the rising cost of water.

I’d love to know your thoughts on this! What real talking points do you think we can pull from this issue? Also, let me know if there’s a blind spot I completely missed that needs to be addressed.