The Hindu: Published on 22 May 2025:
Why in News?
India has decided to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, reigniting debates over whether water, a shared natural resource, can be used as a geopolitical tool against Pakistan. This marks a significant shift in tone, especially given the treaty’s historic resilience during past conflicts.
Background
Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan with the World Bank as a broker.
It allocates:
Eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India
Western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan, with India allowed limited non-consumptive uses (e.g., hydroelectricity).
Born out of practical necessity due to geographical river headworks being in India after Partition.
The treaty survived three wars (1965, 1971, Kargil 1999) and other diplomatic fallouts.
Key Issues:
A. Use of Water as Leverage
Some Indian voices argue for using water as a retaliatory tool post-terror attacks.
Others caution against breaching treaty obligations which could damage India’s global standing.
B. Hydro Projects Disputes
Projects like Kishanganga and Ratle dams have triggered legal disputes under IWT provisions.
Pakistan contends India is manipulating flows, especially during lean seasons.
C. Legal Dilemmas
No provision for unilateral withdrawal from the IWT.
Any deviation could violate Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Risks international backlash, especially from the World Bank and neighbouring river-dependent countries.
International Comparison:
Danube River (Europe): Hungary and Slovakia’s dam conflict was resolved at the International Court of Justice, emphasizing cooperative solutions.
Mekong River (Southeast Asia): Shared by Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand — conflicts managed via Mekong River Commission, fostering transparency.
Lessons: Multilateral frameworks and legal channels help manage water disputes better than unilateral actions.
Ethical and Strategic Dimensions:
Water is a human right, not just a strategic resource.
Weaponising it could harm millions of civilians, especially farmers and low-income populations in Pakistan.
Ethically, this could be viewed as collective punishment, diminishing India’s global moral authority.
Strategic Implications for India:
While India may maximize usage permitted under the IWT, abandoning the treaty could:
Undermine its legal high ground
Complicate bilateral water-sharing with other neighbours like Nepal and Bangladesh
Hurt India’s image as a responsible power striving for a rules-based international order
Way Forward / Recommendations:
Continue legally compliant development of hydro-projects under IWT.
Use existing dispute resolution mechanisms like neutral experts or arbitration courts.
Reaffirm commitment to treaty obligations while pursuing diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to address security concerns.
Promote regional water diplomacy rather than coercion.
Conclusion:
The Indus Waters Treaty stands as a rare beacon of resilience and cooperation in a tense bilateral relationship. Its dilution or abandonment could trigger serious diplomatic, ethical, and humanitarian consequences. Rather than weaponising water, India would benefit more from demonstrating responsible leadership in managing shared resources.
In war, not all is fair — and in peace, some values must remain untouchable.
