Indus Water Treaty - Revision history

Pdewan: /* =1960-2025: Was the Treaty fair to India? */

2025-05-25T22:46:06Z

‎=1960-2025: Was the Treaty fair to India?

Pdewan: /* A one-sided treaty and benefits to Pakistan */

2025-05-25T22:45:07Z

‎A one-sided treaty and benefits to Pakistan

Jyoti: /* India has second thoughts */

2025-05-21T13:39:15Z

‎India has second thoughts

Pdewan: /* See also */

2025-05-04T18:01:27Z

‎See also

Jyoti: /* Inspection of the Chenab projects */

2025-02-17T18:30:45Z

‎Inspection of the Chenab projects

Jyoti: /* One-sided, against India */

2023-02-17T10:53:17Z

‎One-sided, against India

Jyoti at 05:48, 27 January 2019

2019-01-27T05:48:40Z

Jyoti at 05:48, 27 January 2019

2019-01-27T05:48:04Z

Shivam at 16:07, 10 January 2018

2018-01-10T16:07:13Z

Jyoti: /* India’s options vis-à-vis Pakistan */

2017-04-10T15:53:20Z

‎India’s options vis-à-vis Pakistan

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 In effect, Pakistan is offering India a significant opening to remake the terms of the Indus engagement. This is an opportunity that India should not let go. The Indus potentially represents the most potent instrument in India's arsenal  more powerful than the nuclear option, which essentially is for deterrence.
-====1960-2025: Was the Treaty fair to India?===
+===1960-2025: Was the Treaty fair to India?===
 [https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/indus-waters-treaty-fair-to-india-way-forward-10027741/      Yashee/  Has the Indus Waters Treaty been fair to India, and what is the way forward: An Expert Explains/ ''The Indian Express''/ May 25, 2025]
@@ Line 146: / Line 146: @@
 '' Yashee is an Assistant Editor with the indianexpress.com, where she is a member of the Explained team. She is a journalist with over 10 years of experience, starting her career with the Mumbai edition of Hindustan Times. She has also worked with India Today, where she wrote opinion and analysis pieces for DailyO. Her articles break down complex issues for readers with context and insight. Yashee has a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from Presidency College, Kolkata, and a postgraduate diploma in journalism from Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, one of the premier media institutes in the country ''
 [[Category:Development|I INDUS WATER TREATYINDUS WATER TREATY

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 Sinha said, “Though India has been engaged with Afghanistan, there is a need to go for it in a big way in our strategic interest. This option will also exert pressure on Pakistan.“
-===A one-sided treaty and benefits to Pakistan===
+===A one-sided treaty and benefits to Pakistan: Till 2017===
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Shed-The-Indus-Albatross-20032017012045  Brahma Chellaney, Shed The Indus Albatross, Mar 20 2017: The Times of India]
@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 In effect, Pakistan is offering India a significant opening to remake the terms of the Indus engagement. This is an opportunity that India should not let go. The Indus potentially represents the most potent instrument in India's arsenal  more powerful than the nuclear option, which essentially is for deterrence.
 ==How best India can utilise its share of Indus water ==

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
-=India has second thoughts =
+=India has second thoughts=
 ==September 2016- 2023 Jan==
 [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/modi-gave-hint-of-indus-treaty-rethink-after-uri-attack/articleshow/97382955.cms  Sanjay Datta, January 28, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 172: / Line 172: @@
 Clearly, speeding up pending hydel projects and storage infrastructure is a key component of India’s Indus strategy as the treaty in its present form allows India to build storage capacities on the western rivers upto 3.6 million acre feet (MAF) for various purposes, including domestic use.
-[[Category:Development|I
+=YEAR-WISE DEVELOPMENTS=
 INDUS WATER TREATY]]
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|I
+[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|I INDUS WATER TREATYINDUS WATER TREATY
 INDUS WATER TREATY]]
-[[Category:India|I
+[[Category:India|I INDUS WATER TREATYINDUS WATER TREATY
 INDUS WATER TREATY]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|I
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|I INDUS WATER TREATYINDUS WATER TREATY
 INDUS WATER TREATY]]
-[[Category:Pakistan|I
+[[Category:Pakistan|I INDUS WATER TREATYINDUS WATER TREATY
 INDUS WATER TREATY]]
-[[Category:Rivers|I
+[[Category:Rivers|I INDUS WATER TREATYINDUS WATER TREATY
 INDUS WATER TREATY]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:01, 4 May 2025
Line 187:		Line 187:
	=See also=		=See also=
	[[Water Resources: India (ministry data)]]		[[Water Resources: India (ministry data)]]
		+
		+	[[Pakistan- India relations: water]]
		+
		+	[[ Indus Water Treaty]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Development\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:India\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:Pakistan\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:Rivers\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:30, 17 February 2025
Line 43:		Line 43:

	During the talks, India was said to have rejected Pakistan’s objections to the construction work.		During the talks, India was said to have rejected Pakistan’s objections to the construction work.
		+
		+	=Kishenganga, Ratle=
		+	==2025: World Bank’s neutral expert accept’s India’s position==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=22_01_2025_031_007_cap_TOI January 22, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	India welcomed the ruling by the World Bank-appointed neutral expert that said differences between India and Pakistan over the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric power projects in J&K fall within his competence under the Indus Waters Treaty. The govt sees this as a vindication of its stand and interpretation of the treaty as it does not recognise or participate in the parallel and “illegally constituted” court of arbitration proceedings being carried out at Pakistan’s request.
		+
		+	In a statement on the neutral expert’s decision, govt said it remains in touch with Pakistan for the modification and review of the IWT. India had last year cited cross-border terror as one of the reasons for seeking a review of the treaty.
		+
		+	[[Category:Development\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:India\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:Pakistan\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]
		+	[[Category:Rivers\|I INDUS WATER TREATY
		+	INDUS WATER TREATY]]

	=One-sided, against India=		=One-sided, against India=

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 Referring to the World Bank's recent decision to set up a Court of Arbitration (CoA) to settle disputes relating to Kishanganga and Ratle hydro projects on Pakistan's demand, Sinha said India should forcefully tell the Bank to factor in technological changes and new knowledge while looking at the implementation of ongoing projects.
 =See also=
 [[Water Resources: India (ministry data)]]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 Currently , India stores no water from the western rivers, but is permitted to store 3.6 million acre feet (MAF).That, the government says, will now be done, directly impacting the amount of water available to Pakistan.
 =One-sided, against India=
@@ Line 111: / Line 128: @@
 Referring to the World Bank's recent decision to set up a Court of Arbitration (CoA) to settle disputes relating to Kishanganga and Ratle hydro projects on Pakistan's demand, Sinha said India should forcefully tell the Bank to factor in technological changes and new knowledge while looking at the implementation of ongoing projects.
 =See also=
 [[Water Resources: India (ministry data)]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 </div>
 |}
 [[File: Indus Water Treaty the basics.jpg|Indus Water Treaty the basics <br/> [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Gallery.aspx?id=23_09_2016_001_031_011&type=P&artUrl=Veiled-threat-Indus-Waters-Treaty-cant-be-one-23092016001031&eid=31808 ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 10 April 2017
Line 57:		Line 57:

	Sinha said, “Though India has been engaged with Afghanistan, there is a need to go for it in a big way in our strategic interest. This option will also exert pressure on Pakistan.“		Sinha said, “Though India has been engaged with Afghanistan, there is a need to go for it in a big way in our strategic interest. This option will also exert pressure on Pakistan.“
		+
		+	===A one-sided treaty and benefits to Pakistan===
		+	[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Shed-The-Indus-Albatross-20032017012045 Brahma Chellaney, Shed The Indus Albatross, Mar 20 2017: The Times of India]
		+
		+
		+	''' Indus Waters Treaty offers one-sided benefits to Pakistan, World Bank too is partisan '''
		+
		+	At a time when India is haunted by a deepening water crisis, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) hangs like the proverbial albatross from its neck. In 1960, in the naïve hope that water largesse would yield peace, India entered into a treaty that gave away the Indus system's largest rivers as gifts to Pakistan. Since then that congenitally hostile neighbour, while drawing the full benefits from the treaty, has waged overt or covert aggression almost continuously and is now using the IWT itself as a stick to beat India with, including by contriving water disputes and internationalising them.
		+
		+	A partisan World Bank, meanwhile, has compounded matters further.Breaching IWT's terms under which an arbitral tribunal cannot be established while the parties' disagreement “is being dealt with by a neutral expert“, the Bank proceeded in November to appoint both a court of arbitration (as demanded by Pakistan) and a neutral expert (as suggested by India). It did so while admitting that the two concurrent processes could make the treaty “unworkable over time“.
		+
		+	World Bank partisanship, however, is not new: IWT was the product of the Bank's activism, with US government support, in making India embrace an unparalleled treaty that parcelled out the largest three of the six rivers to Pakistan and made the Bank effectively a guarantor in the treaty's initial phase. With much of its meat in its voluminous annexes this is an exhaustive, book-length treaty with a patently neo-colonial structure that limits India's sovereignty to the basin of the three smaller rivers.
		+
		+	The Bank's recent decision was made more bizarre by the fact that while the treaty explicitly permits either party to seek a neutral expert's appointment, it specifies no such unilateral right for a court of arbitration. In 2010, such an arbitral tribunal was appointed with both parties' consent. The neutral expert, however, is empowered to refer the parties' disagreement, if need be, to a court of arbitration.
		+
		+	The uproar that followed the World Bank's initiation of the dual processes forced it to “pause“, but not terminate, its legally untenable decision. Stuck with a mess of its own making, it is now prodding India to bail it out by compromising with Pakistan over the two moderate-sized Indian hydropower projects. But what Pakistan wants are design changes of the type it enforced years ago in the Salal project, resulting in that plant silting up. It is threatening to target other Indian projects as well.
		+
		+	Yet Indian policy appears adrift.Indeed, India is backsliding even on its tentative moves to deter Pakistani terrorism. For example, after last September's Uri attack, it suspended the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) with Pakistan. Now the suspension has been lifted, allowing the PIC to meet in the aftermath of the state elections.
		+
		+	In truth the suspension was just a charade, with the PIC missing no meeting. Prime Minister Narendra Modi reversed course in time for PIC, which meets at least once every financial year, to meet before the current year ended on March 31in order to prepare its annual report by the treaty-stipulated June 1deadline. But while the suspension was widely publicised for political ends, the reversal happened quietly.
		+
		+	Much of the media also fell for another charade that Modi sought to play to the hilt in Punjab elections: He promised to end Punjab's water stress by utilising India's full IWT-allocated share of the waters. His government, however, has initiated not a single new project to correct India's abysmal failure to tap its meagre 19.48% share of the Indus waters.
		+
		+	Instead, Modi has engaged in little more than eyewash: He has appointed a committee of secretaries, not to find ways to fashion the Indus card to reform Pakistan's conduct, but farcically to examine India's own rights under IWT over 56 years after it was signed. The answer to India's serious under-utilisation of its share, which has resulted in Pakistan getting more than 10 billion cubic metres (BCM) yearly in bonus waters on top of its staggering 167.2 BCM allocation, is not a bureaucratic rigmarole but political direction to speedily build storage and other structures.
		+
		+	Despite Modi's declaration that “blood and water cannot flow together“, India is reluctant to hold Pakistan to account by linking IWT's future to that renegade state's cessation of its unconventional war. It is past time India shed its reticence.
		+
		+	Pakistan's interest lies in sustaining a unique treaty that incorporates water generosity to the lower riparian on a scale unmatched by any other pact in the world. Yet it is undermining its own interest by dredging up disputes with India and running down IWT as ineffective for resolving them. By insisting that India must not ask what it is getting in return but bear only IWT's burdens, even as it suffers Pakistan's proxy war, Islamabad itself highlights the treaty's one-sided character.
		+
		+	In effect, Pakistan is offering India a significant opening to remake the terms of the Indus engagement. This is an opportunity that India should not let go. The Indus potentially represents the most potent instrument in India's arsenal more powerful than the nuclear option, which essentially is for deterrence.

	==How best India can utilise its share of Indus water ==		==How best India can utilise its share of Indus water ==