Debashree Mukherjee, Indian Secretary of Water Resources, wrote to his Pakistani counterpart Syed Ali Murtaz on Thursday (April 24, 2025) that India had a contract for Indus Waters in 1960 (IWT) in 1960 in 1960 26 civilians. In response to the Pakistani Prime Minister, he sentenced this step as a “war act” and announced a number of retaliatory diplomatic measures, including the suspension of the Siml Agreement of 1972.
For more than six decades, the treaty has been a rare evidence of the resistance of diplomacy based on the rules in South Asia. But in the middle of the escalating tension between the new Delhi and Islamabad, the future of the contract now seems to be more insecure than ever.
What does the contract mean?
The origin of the IWT can be traced to the division of India in August 1947, which meant the end of the British colonial government and the emergence of India and Pakistan as two sovereign nations. Both countries where more than 1.6 billion are home to combined populations are critically dependent on the waters of the rivers flowing from the Himalayas. Given their joint reliance on these river systems for agriculture and irrigation, there was an urgent need to negotiate fair sharing of water resources.
After almost decades of negotiations mediated by the World Bank, the contract signed in September 1960 by former Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nezru and former Pakistani President Ayub Khan.
Under the contract, India was awarded unlimited rights to three Eastern Greeks – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, while Pakistan received an exclusive control of three western rivers – Indum, Jhelum and Chenab, which collectively make up the lion’s share of water supply. Although the western rivers are assigned to Pakistan, India retains limited rights to the use of its waters for “inconsonyous” purposes, including domestic use, irrigation and hydropower production.
The contract also introduces a robust institutional framework for cooperation and dispute resolution. Disputes are resolved through the three -stage process: first, before the permanent Indus (PIC) Commission, including a delegation of water experts from both countries; then a neutral expert appointed by the World Bank; And finally the forum of the arbitrators.
Why did there be previous attempts to change its conditions?
The design parameters of Kisgenhang and Ratle in Jammu and Kashmir – the former project – are between the two countries of the bones of savings between the two countries. While Pakistan claims that the proposal of these structures allows India to be more controlled over shared water resources, India claims that projects adhere to the provisions of the fair use of water.
In 2013, the permanent judgment for arbitration, based in The Hague India, continued to continue its projects on Kishangang, but banned the use of “rinse” if the water level caused under dead storage capacity of the dam. This technique involves release of the accumulated water from the tank to wash away the mud and sediment, ensuring optimal functioning of the hydner energy projects. It can also be used to control river flow downstream.
In 2015, Pakistan asked the World Bank to appoint a neutral expert in the establishment of operational procedures for Kishangang and Ratle projects. Although India approved the application, Pakistan later withdrew it unilaterally and in 2016 proposed to submit a dispute over arbitration.
India, however, characterized the arbitration procedure as “illegally designed” and claimed that the dispute could not escalate to the third phase – arbitra – without the first exhaustion of the two earlier mechanisms specified in the contract. The World Bank initially agreed to warn that parallel proceedings before a neutral expert and arbitration court could lead to “contradictory results”. However, in 2022 he facilitated the appointment of a neutral expert and the chairman of the court of arbitration. While Pakistan participated in both proceedings, India boycotted in the Hague arbitration.
When the interviews reached a dead end, the new Delhi issued Islamabad a formal announcement in 2023 pursuant to Article XII paragraph 3 IWT and for the first time looked for a “adjustment” of the contract. India quoted significant changes from the signing of the contract, including changes in the population, developing water requirements, growing threats of disasters related to climate and cross -border terrorism.
Last year, the sources told the Hindes that the picture would not convene other meetings until both parties have discussed a 64 -year contract. It was also found that despite India’s sending more announcements, Pakistan did not provide any “satisfactory response”.
Is the unilateral suspension of the contract permissible?
IWT cannot be unilaterally changed. Article XII provides that its provision “may be regulated by a properly ratified contract concluded for this purpose between the two governments”. It also explains that the contract can only be terminated through the “properly ratified contract” to which both states agree.
The term “Hold in Aneayance”, as India uses in his letter to Pakistan, is not recognized in international law, nor in the Vienna Convention on the Pravo of the Treaty (VCLT), 1969, the main agreement on governance between states. “VCLT does not use the word“ leaving ”; It uses the term “suspension” that allows the country to suspend or part of the contract. The suspension varies from ending. I believe that when India used the word “leaving”, rather “suspend” rather than end IWT, “Dr. Prabhash Ranjan, said Jovindál, Hindukci said.
Article 62 VCLT allows the rejection of the contract if there has been a “basic change of circumstances” from those existing at the time of its conclusion. Although India is not a party VCLT and Pakistan signed it, but not ratified, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Cases of jurisdiction of fishing (Great Britain v. Iceland; Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland) confirmed that Article 62 codes usual international law and is therefore binding regardless of formal ratification.
India seems to evoke this principle because his letter stated that “basic changes in the given circumstances” require “re -evaluation of liabilities” within IWT. He quoted factors such as “significantly changed demography of the population”, “the need to speed up the development of pure energy” and alleged hostility of Pakistan in “good faith”.
Dr. Ranjan, however, pointed out that the ICJ decision set a high threshold of what qualified as a “basic change in circumstances”. In 1997 Gabcíkovo-nagymoros Project The dispute between Hungary and Slovakia on the construction of the dam Hungary claimed that political and economic shifts, together with the threat of environmental disasters, provided sufficient reasons to terminate the contract. However, ICJ rejected these arguments and noted that political and economic changes were not directly associated with the primary goal of the contract – joint energy production. In addition, any potential environmental risks were considered completely unpredictable and therefore could not be considered a “basic change in circumstances”.
“The exception under Article 62 is limited to changes in the circumstances existing at the time of the contract; it does not apply to subsequent external developments. The more cautious course for India would suspend IWT as countermeasures under international law stated by the Pakistan -persistent violation of the Indian territorial territorial territorial land use territorial territorial territorial territorial territorial territorial territorial territor
How is the suspension probably influence Pakistan?
More than 80% of agriculture in Pakistan and approximately a third of the generation of hydropower depends on the waters of the Indus pelvis. However, experts claim that India lacks a massive storage infrastructure and extensive channel systems that have to detain tens of billions of cubic meters of water from western rivers.
“India’s infrastructure consists of mostly water -energy water supply, which does not have the capacity for extensive storage. However, the real impact is insecure water flow, which could seriously affect the Pakistani Agrarian economy. HAPPYMON JACOB, Associate Professor of School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nezru University, Hindu.
The head of the government official had previously told the Hindes that India would explore “possibilities she had never considered” for IWT, such as reworking its water projects to increase the storage capacity of water and deploy the “drawing” of its reservoirs. Sudden release of large volumes of water without prior warning could potentially cause significant damage downstream in Pakistan.
“It is probably the harshest step between the non -clinging measures that India could take. As far as the next steps are concerned, it is unlikely that the international community is exerting significant pressure on India, because Pakistan would first have to take trusted steps to deal with concern for India about his sponsorship of cross -border terrorism,” Jacob.
He also pointed out that Pakistan would be difficult to ensure the intervention of the World Bank unless India is willing to cooperate.
Published – April 26, 2025 18:19
