Unfair and Outdated

The Indus Waters Treaty's blatantly unfair division of water, climate change and upstream actions by China are valid reasons for India to abrogate it or keep it in abeyance

- Dilip Sinha IS AN AUTHOR AND FORMER DIPLOMAT

PAKISTAN has written to India seeking reconsideration of its decision to keep the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. Its letter declares India's action to be “unilateral and illegal”. The tone is not conciliatory, but for the first time, signals willingness to discuss India's concerns. India has declared that it will keep the treaty in abeyance until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably” abjures support for cross-border terrorism.

Linking talks on the IWT to action on terrorism can be tricky. India has tried in the past to pin Pakistan on its support to terrorism, but each time it wriggled out with insincere promises. The IWT deals with our country's water rights. And our own water needs should have priority over international commitments, especially since there is no accepted international law on river water sharing.

The IWT, signed in 1960, divided the waters of the Indus and its five tributaries, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. India got full rights to the waters of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej (the 'eastern rivers'), which have an average annual flow of 33 million acre-feet (MAF). Pakistan got near-full rights to the other three rivers—Indus, Jhelum and Chenab—with an average annual flow of 135 MAF. On these rivers, India was allowed very limited consumptive use for agriculture and run-of-river hydel projects. The aggregate storage it could build for all purposes, including flood control, was limited to 3.6 MAF.

Pakistan was given inspection rights to ensure that India adhered to the prescribed storage and consumption limits. The treaty provided for a two-pronged dispute settlement mechanism—a neutral expert for technical questions and a court of arbitration for other issues—enforceable by the World Bank in a time-bound manner. A fund, paid for by both countries, was placed with the World Bank to pay for the expenses.