Demand for government’s decision to issue notice to Pakistan Negotiations for amendment of Indus Water Treaty, should be considered carefully. New Delhi says this extreme step is due to Pakistan’s intransigence over objections to two Indian hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir: the 330MW Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (Jhelum) and the 850MW Ratle Hydroelectric Project (Chenab). India has argued since 2006, when the objections began, that the projects were within fair water use of the treaty. However, Pakistan has refused to end talks with India in the bilateral mechanism – the Permanent Indus Commission of Experts which meets regularly – and has often sought to extend it. As a result, the World Bank appointed a neutral expert, but Pakistan insisted on hearing the case at The Hague. India has objected to this sequencing, as it believes that each phase should be completely phased out before moving on to the next. While India was able to prevail upon the World Bank to stop the process in 2016, Pakistan persisted, and from March 2022 onwards, the World Bank agreed to hear arguments from both a neutral expert and the Court of Arbitration (CoA) Is. India had participated in the hearings with the neutral expert last year, but decided to boycott the CoA in The Hague, which began its hearings on Friday. New Delhi says that since the talks have reached an impasse, it wants the entire treaty to be thrown open for amendments and renegotiation. India’s allegations against Pakistan may be valid, given that Islamabad has failed to provide physical evidence of the two projects obstructing its water supply. The World Bank’s decision to hold two parallel adjudication processes is also dangerous as it may lead to conflicting decisions. However, opening up the treaty for review has its own problems which India must discuss with a cool head.
To begin with, the Indus Waters Treaty which decided the distribution of the Indus or the six tributaries of the Indus took almost a decade to be originally negotiated between the two countries before it was signed in 1960. The treaty in good standing for at least half a century, and it is often used as a template between Upper Riparian and Lower Riparian states around the world. That it has endured despite the conflict and political rhetoric between India and Pakistan is a testament to its lessons. Furthermore, if India and Pakistan have not been able to resolve issues on one issue in their Indus Commission talks in 16 years, what is the guarantee that they will renegotiate the entire treaty within any reasonable time frame? can do? At a time when there is no political dialogue, trade and air or rail links between them, the reopening of talks could open a new avenue for India-Pakistan confrontation.