<p>Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to review the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) suggests a strategic shift in the policy towards Pakistan.<br /><br /></p>.<p> Modi stated that “Water and blood cannot flow simultaneously.” For the first time, New Delhi has decided to explore the possibility of river water as a strategic weapon vis-a-vis Islamabad.<br /><br />The IWT was negotiated over nine years between India and Pakistan and was signed on Sept 19, 1960. It is a unique treaty simply because it is based on sharing rivers between two countries – not their waters. <br /><br />According to the IWT, three western rivers – Indus, Chenab and Jhelum – are allocated to Pakistan while the three eastern rivers – Sutlej, Beas and Ravi – flow into India. The IWT also permits India to the restricted use of western rivers for domestic, non-consumptive and hydro-electric with minimal storage purposes. While 80% of the waters of the Indus river system benefits Pakistan, only 20% flows into India.<br /><br />Under the Treaty, disagreements by the parties on the int-erpretation of the provisions are classified into three categories: Firstly, all questions will be decided by the Permanent Indus Commission. Secondly, differences will be decided by a neutral expert. Thirdly, disputes will be decided by a Permanent Co-urt of Arbitration at The Hague.<br /><br />The popular perception is that the IWT represents a superb slice of success in India-Pakistan relations. But the only positive of the IWT is simply that it has survived the three India-Pakistan conflicts of 1965 and 1999 over Kashmir, besides 1971 related to East Pakistan. The Treaty is not free from controversies. In reality, there are differences over several issues that have not been sorted out despite prolonged bilateral talks.<br /><br />Pakistan has opposed the Tulbul Navigation Project and Kishanganga Hydro-Electric Project (KHEP) on Jhelum River Basin and DulHasti and Baglihar Hydro-Electric Project on the Chenab river basin. The fact that Pakistan perceives several problems over the IWT with India makes one really wonder ab-out the success of this World Ba-nk mediated treaty. Despite the fact that India is legally entitled to construct dams on the western rivers with minimum water storage, Pakistan has raised objections on these projects. <br /> <br />Islamabad strongly feels that the allocation of river water and India’s construction of dams do not follow the criteria specified in the IWT and diversion of water would disturb the flow of western rivers into Pakistan. However, India says that all its dam projects are completely in compliance with the terms of the Treaty. Yet Pakistan has taken the KHEP to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. <br /><br />In the case of Baglihar dam, which India started to build in 1999 and completed in 2008, Pakistan objected to its height and storage capacity. Eventually in the Baglihar Dam case, neutral expert Raymond Laffite gave his final award in 2007 with only some minor changes on the project design but Pakistan expressed her dissatisfaction on the matter.<br /><br />In principle, Pakistan said that the Indian riverine projects or dams do not follow the criteria specified in the IWT. Islamabad holds the position that unlimited proliferation of dams and diversion of water would badly disturb flow of the western rivers into Pakistan. However, India says that all Indian projects are fully in compliance with the Treaty.<br /><br />Diverting water<br /><br />In the Kishanganga case, the Permanent Court of Arbitration allows India to divert water for power generation with a minimum flow 318 cusecs into the Kishanganga river below the KHEP throughout the year. <br /><br />In this case also, the decision did not favour Pakistan, though in both the cases, Islamabad raised the issue for third party mediation. While the Indus river is critical for Pakistan’s existence, it holds equal importance for the India’s northern border state of Jammu & Kashmir, especially the western rivers which are allocated to Pakistan under the Treaty.<br /><br />Today, J&K suffers from acute power deficiency due to the IWT’s restrictions on its use of rivers. The northern border state still has untapped hydro-power potential of over 25,000 MW. Recently, J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti said that “There have been so many wars, but the IWT was not touched because both the countries benefited from our resources, even as J&K suffered losses.” <br /><br />Considering that J&K is an integral part of India, the prevalent socio-economic situation there assumes greater significance rather than its hostile western neighbour Pakistan. New Delhi could diplomatically leverage the IWT to dilute the anti-India sentiment among the Kashmiri people in the border state.<br /><br />Importantly, the adverse impact of climate change is clearly visible in our water resources sector. The change in rainfall pa-ttern and retreat of glaciers has resulted in an acute water shortage across the country. Can India afford to be so liberal about sharing the waters of the Indus river system with Pakistan?<br /><br />Therefore, this is the right time for New Delhi to review the Treaty and re-sign, given the nature of relations with Pakistan characterised by hostility. Also, J&K should be treated as a stakeholder in the revised IWT which should be re-worked keeping the interests of the northern border state in mind. <br /><br /></p>
<p>Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to review the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) suggests a strategic shift in the policy towards Pakistan.<br /><br /></p>.<p> Modi stated that “Water and blood cannot flow simultaneously.” For the first time, New Delhi has decided to explore the possibility of river water as a strategic weapon vis-a-vis Islamabad.<br /><br />The IWT was negotiated over nine years between India and Pakistan and was signed on Sept 19, 1960. It is a unique treaty simply because it is based on sharing rivers between two countries – not their waters. <br /><br />According to the IWT, three western rivers – Indus, Chenab and Jhelum – are allocated to Pakistan while the three eastern rivers – Sutlej, Beas and Ravi – flow into India. The IWT also permits India to the restricted use of western rivers for domestic, non-consumptive and hydro-electric with minimal storage purposes. While 80% of the waters of the Indus river system benefits Pakistan, only 20% flows into India.<br /><br />Under the Treaty, disagreements by the parties on the int-erpretation of the provisions are classified into three categories: Firstly, all questions will be decided by the Permanent Indus Commission. Secondly, differences will be decided by a neutral expert. Thirdly, disputes will be decided by a Permanent Co-urt of Arbitration at The Hague.<br /><br />The popular perception is that the IWT represents a superb slice of success in India-Pakistan relations. But the only positive of the IWT is simply that it has survived the three India-Pakistan conflicts of 1965 and 1999 over Kashmir, besides 1971 related to East Pakistan. The Treaty is not free from controversies. In reality, there are differences over several issues that have not been sorted out despite prolonged bilateral talks.<br /><br />Pakistan has opposed the Tulbul Navigation Project and Kishanganga Hydro-Electric Project (KHEP) on Jhelum River Basin and DulHasti and Baglihar Hydro-Electric Project on the Chenab river basin. The fact that Pakistan perceives several problems over the IWT with India makes one really wonder ab-out the success of this World Ba-nk mediated treaty. Despite the fact that India is legally entitled to construct dams on the western rivers with minimum water storage, Pakistan has raised objections on these projects. <br /> <br />Islamabad strongly feels that the allocation of river water and India’s construction of dams do not follow the criteria specified in the IWT and diversion of water would disturb the flow of western rivers into Pakistan. However, India says that all its dam projects are completely in compliance with the terms of the Treaty. Yet Pakistan has taken the KHEP to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. <br /><br />In the case of Baglihar dam, which India started to build in 1999 and completed in 2008, Pakistan objected to its height and storage capacity. Eventually in the Baglihar Dam case, neutral expert Raymond Laffite gave his final award in 2007 with only some minor changes on the project design but Pakistan expressed her dissatisfaction on the matter.<br /><br />In principle, Pakistan said that the Indian riverine projects or dams do not follow the criteria specified in the IWT. Islamabad holds the position that unlimited proliferation of dams and diversion of water would badly disturb flow of the western rivers into Pakistan. However, India says that all Indian projects are fully in compliance with the Treaty.<br /><br />Diverting water<br /><br />In the Kishanganga case, the Permanent Court of Arbitration allows India to divert water for power generation with a minimum flow 318 cusecs into the Kishanganga river below the KHEP throughout the year. <br /><br />In this case also, the decision did not favour Pakistan, though in both the cases, Islamabad raised the issue for third party mediation. While the Indus river is critical for Pakistan’s existence, it holds equal importance for the India’s northern border state of Jammu & Kashmir, especially the western rivers which are allocated to Pakistan under the Treaty.<br /><br />Today, J&K suffers from acute power deficiency due to the IWT’s restrictions on its use of rivers. The northern border state still has untapped hydro-power potential of over 25,000 MW. Recently, J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti said that “There have been so many wars, but the IWT was not touched because both the countries benefited from our resources, even as J&K suffered losses.” <br /><br />Considering that J&K is an integral part of India, the prevalent socio-economic situation there assumes greater significance rather than its hostile western neighbour Pakistan. New Delhi could diplomatically leverage the IWT to dilute the anti-India sentiment among the Kashmiri people in the border state.<br /><br />Importantly, the adverse impact of climate change is clearly visible in our water resources sector. The change in rainfall pa-ttern and retreat of glaciers has resulted in an acute water shortage across the country. Can India afford to be so liberal about sharing the waters of the Indus river system with Pakistan?<br /><br />Therefore, this is the right time for New Delhi to review the Treaty and re-sign, given the nature of relations with Pakistan characterised by hostility. Also, J&K should be treated as a stakeholder in the revised IWT which should be re-worked keeping the interests of the northern border state in mind. <br /><br /></p>
