New Delhi has followed up last year’s notice to Islamabad on the “modification” of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with a stern message asking for a “review and modification” of the more than six-decade-old agreement. The two countries have a longstanding dispute over two run-of-the-river power projects — the fully operational Kishanganga on the Jhelum, and the under-construction Ratle project on the Chenab. IWT asks India to “let flow” the waters of these western rivers to Pakistan. At the same time, the Treaty allows India to use these rivers’ waters for non-consumptive purposes, including projects that use the natural flow of these water bodies. Pakistan, however, has objected to these projects, despite the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) giving India a go-ahead for Kishanganga. Islamabad has also refused intergovernmental negotiations. Mediation by a World Bank-appointed neutral expert would have been the next step under the IWT’s dispute resolution mechanism. Pakistan had indeed requested such an arbitration in 2015. However, it retracted the application a year later and the Bank too “paused” its intervention, asking Pakistan to seek an “amicable way out”. Then, in July last year, the PCA intervened and said it has the “competence” to adjudicate on Kishanganga and Ratle. India disagreed on the ground that the next step under the IWT’s graded approach should be mediation by a neutral expert — not by the Hague-based body.
A large part of Delhi’s latest claim pertains to the role India assigns to renewable energy in its climate action plans. The 850-MW Ratle hydroelectric project is a part of its approach. Ratle’s employment-generating capacity too cannot be understated. New Delhi’s notice to Islamabad emphasises “the need to accelerate development of clean energy to meet emission targets”. The IWT provides for “modification from time to time”. But the two countries should continue to safeguard the spirit of cooperation underlined in the treaty. Climate change, in fact, has amplified the IWT’s underlying principle — water doesn’t recognise national borders and upper riparians have a responsibility to lower riparians.
If Islamabad has been intransigent, New Delhi has not always fully upheld the IWT’s spirit. After the Uri attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: “Blood and water cannot flow together”. India has legitimate ecological and economic concerns but talks on an energy-sharing agreement, which should have been the next step to IWT, have proved a non-starter. IWT has withstood war and terrorism. Both India and Pakistan should make efforts to protect the treaty in times of myriad ecological crises.
