On August 30, 2024, India officially informed Pakistan of its request to review and amend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. This move indicates India’s growing frustration with the treaty’s implementation, especially concerning Pakistan’s reluctance to address issues related to the shared rivers. Article XII (3) of the treaty states that any modifications can occur only if both governments agree and ratify the changes. This recent notice follows a previous communication from India on January 25, 2023, where it highlighted the need for adjustments to the treaty. Reports suggest that India is encouraging Pakistan to participate in direct negotiations to discuss possible changes, as permitted by Article XII (3). This initiative demonstrates India’s dedication to resolving its concerns through formal dialogue. By seeking a review of the Indus Waters Treaty, India aims to tackle ongoing disputes and enhance the management of shared water resources with Pakistan. The call for negotiations underscores the necessity of cooperation between the two nations in addressing these vital issues. Both countries must collaborate to find a solution that is mutually beneficial and ensures equitable use of the river systems.
The Indus Waters Treaty was established in 1960 after nine years of negotiations between India and Pakistan, facilitated by the World Bank, which is also a signatory. It is regarded as the most enduring treaty between the two nations but has faced significant strain in recent years as bilateral relations have deteriorated due to tensions over terrorism and Jammu and Kashmir. The push for changes also arises amid ongoing disputes concerning the 330-MW Kishanganga and 850-MW Ratle hydropower projects. The World Bank has concurrently activated both the “neutral expert” mechanism and the Permanent Court of Arbitration regarding these issues. The Indian government has called for a reassessment of the dispute resolution mechanism outlined in the Indus Waters Treaty. Officially, India has requested a review and modification of the 1960 treaty, reflecting its growing dissatisfaction with its implementation. This discontent is particularly aimed at Pakistan’s reluctance to resolve issues related to shared rivers. According to Article XII (3) of the Treaty, any amendments can be made through a duly ratified agreement between the two countries. India communicated this request for change on January 25, 2023, as reported by sources familiar with the matter. Through this formal notice, India is urging Pakistan to enter into negotiations to reevaluate the treaty, as allowed by Article XII (3). In 2015, Pakistan had sought a neutral expert to address its concerns regarding two hydropower projects but withdrew this request in 2016, opting instead for arbitration through a court.
The World Bank appointed both a neutral expert and the chair of the arbitration court in 2016, but later suspended both processes that same year. The suspension was lifted in March 2022 at Pakistan’s request, allowing both the neutral expert and the arbitration court to continue their work. This ongoing situation underscores the complexities and challenges involved in managing the Indus Waters Treaty, as both nations navigate their rights and responsibilities concerning water resources. Recent developments signal a pivotal moment in India-Pakistan relations regarding water management and dispute resolution. The proposed negotiations will not include the World Bank and will be open-ended, addressing all aspects of the treaty. When India achieved independence in 1947, the boundary was drawn through the Indus Basin, placing Pakistan as the lower riparian state. This arrangement has led to conflicts over significant irrigation projects, such as those at Madhopur on the Ravi River and Feroz. The Indus Waters Treaty assigned the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—to Pakistan, while India received the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. The treaty also permitted each nation to utilize certain aspects of the rivers that were allocated to the other. The World Bank’s involvement is mainly procedural, focusing on appointing neutral experts or overseeing the arbitration process.
