SYLLABUS
GS-2: India and its Neighborhood- Relations; Bilateral, Regional and Global Groupings and Agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests.
Context: India has rejected the latest award of the Court of Arbitration (CoA) at The Hague on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), maintaining that the body was illegally constituted and has no jurisdiction over India’s sovereign decisions concerning the Treaty.
More on the News
• The CoA issued an award holding that the IWT remains fully in force and that India’s decision to place it in abeyance could not suspend its Treaty obligations.
• However, India rejected the award, reiterating that it has never recognised the legal existence or jurisdiction of the CoA and has not participated in its proceedings.
• The ruling relates to the wider dispute concerning India’s Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, over which India and Pakistan have differed on technical design issues.
• India maintains that the CoA’s pronouncements, including the latest award, have no bearing on its sovereign decisions or projects, and that its decision to keep the IWT in abeyance remains in force.
Understanding the Indus Waters Treaty
• Background: The IWT was signed at Karachi on 19 September 1960 after negotiations facilitated by the World Bank. It provides a framework for the utilisation of the waters of the Indus River system by India and Pakistan.
• Eastern Rivers: The Ravi, Beas and Sutlej were allocated for India’s exclusive use, subject to the provisions of the Treaty.
• Western Rivers: The Indus, Jhelum and Chenab were allocated primarily for Pakistan’s use, while India retained specified rights, including for domestic use, agricultural use and hydroelectric power generation, subject to Treaty conditions.
• Hydropower: India is permitted to construct run-of-the-river hydroelectric plants on the Western Rivers, subject to design and operational restrictions prescribed by the Treaty and its Annexures.
• Permanent Indus Commission: The Treaty established the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), comprising one Commissioner from each country, as the principal institutional mechanism for implementation, cooperation and exchange of information.
Why Did India Put the IWT in Abeyance?
• Security trigger: Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack of 22 April 2025, India announced on 23 April that the IWT would be kept in abeyance with immediate effect. India linked the decision to Pakistan’s alleged support for cross-border terrorism.
• Stated condition: India has maintained that the Treaty will remain in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.
• Earlier concerns: The move followed India’s earlier efforts to seek a review and modification of the Treaty, reflecting concerns over changed circumstances and evolving developmental, demographic and environmental requirements.
• India’s present position: India maintains that its decision to keep the IWT in abeyance remains in force, notwithstanding the CoA’s contrary finding.
Why Does India Reject the Court’s Jurisdiction?
• Treaty-based mechanism: Article IX establishes a graded mechanism for addressing water-related issues through the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration, depending on the nature of the matter.
• India’s core objection: India maintains that the disagreements concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle projects are technical in nature and should be examined through the Neutral Expert mechanism provided under the Treaty.
• Parallel processes: In 2022, the World Bank resumed two separate processes concerning the projects—one involving a Neutral Expert sought by India and another involving a Court of Arbitration sought by Pakistan. India objected to their concurrent operation.
• Constitution of the CoA: India maintains that the World Bank-constituted CoA was established in breach of the Treaty framework and therefore lacks jurisdiction; accordingly, India has neither recognised the body nor appeared before it.
Significance and Broader Implications
• Water security and development: The dispute has direct implications for India’s exercise of its Treaty-permitted rights on the Western Rivers, particularly its hydropower development potential.
• Treaty resilience: It tests the functioning of a 1960 water-sharing framework amid significant changes in India–Pakistan relations and the wider security environment. The Treaty has otherwise continued to operate through periods of serious bilateral conflict.
• Dispute-resolution architecture: The episode highlights the difficulties that can arise when the two countries differ over the appropriate Treaty mechanism and the jurisdiction of an adjudicatory body, particularly when parallel processes are initiated.
• Changing water realities: The debate over the Treaty increasingly encompasses developmental needs, environmental concerns and changing hydrological conditions, raising questions about the adequacy of a framework negotiated more than six decades ago.
• Security–water linkage: India’s decision demonstrates how cross-border security concerns can increasingly influence transboundary water cooperation, making water governance an important dimension of the broader India–Pakistan relationship.