SECURING Water rights in Pakistan, as outlined by the Indus Waters Treaty signed with India more than 60 years ago, are a crucial concern for this nation. Recently, there have been some cries for the treaty to be changed coming from the other side of the eastern border. The document may be changed, but not by one party acting alone.
Unfortunately, a lot of India’s actions involving transboundary rivers have been dubious and threaten the IWT’s guarantee of the free flow of western rivers to Pakistan. Construction of the Kishanganga project on the Jhelum in controlled Kashmir and the Rattle project on the Chenab, both in IHK, are examples of these actions. In 2016, Pakistan filed a lawsuit at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague challenging both schemes.
The court recently confirmed that Pakistan had done so, rejecting India’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. While the court stated that the verdict was binding on all parties and could not be challenged, this has been interpreted as support for Pakistan’s position. India favors the bilateral dispute resolution provided by the IWT. However, the treaty stipulates that a neutral expert or an arbitration court must be involved where irritants cannot be resolved amicably by both governments. In a perfect world, issues between India and Pakistan would be settled bilaterally.
But as the last few years have demonstrated, bilateralism has not much improved dispute resolution, leaving leeway for outside parties to intervene and attempt mediation. The IWT permits bilateral dispute resolution, which India prefers. However, the treaty mandates the participation of an impartial expert or an arbitration court when irritants cannot be resolved by both governments. The ideal way to resolve conflicts between Pakistan and India is bilaterally. However, as recent years have demonstrated, bilateralism hasn’t much improved dispute resolution, leaving leeway for other parties to intervene and attempt mediation.
Therefore, India needs to respect the decision of The Hague court and not stonewall efforts to find a just and practicable solution to the disputes concerning transboundary waters. Where India’s demands to alter the IWT go, as mentioned above, it cannot be a unilateral decision. The treaty has proved remarkably successful in tackling the sensitive technical and legal issues arising out of the sharing of transboundary waters. The Indian government must not politicise the water issue just to please its rabid voter base as elections in that country approach. Technical and environmental issues must not be sacrificed at the altar of ultranationalist ideology. For Pakistan, protecting its water rights is non-negotiable, and all efforts must be made to let the Indus waters flow freely.
