Context: A recent supplemental award by the Court of Arbitration (CoA) in The Hague has turned attention to the challenges confronting the Indus water Treaty.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: About Indus Water Treaty Mains: Challenges confronting Indus Water Treaty and India's strategic vision.
About Indus Water Treaty
- Signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank.
- Objective: To determine the distribution of the waters of the Indus and its tributaries between India and Pakistan.
- The Treaty divides the six rivers of the Indus basin between the two countries.
- The Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) were allocated for exclusive use by India.
- The Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) were allocated primarily to Pakistan, but India allowed for specific non-consumptive uses like navigation, flood protection or flood control, Domestic use, Agricultural use, Generation of hydro-electric power etc.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism
The treaty provides 3 step Dispute Resolution Mechanism :
Step 1: Permanent Indus Commission (PIC):
- Disputes are first decided at the level of the Indus Commissioners.
- The treaty required the creation of a PIC, with a commissioner from each country for communication.
Step 2: Neutral Expert
- Appointed by the World Bank and involves rendering a binding decision.
Step 3: Court of Arbitration (CoA)
- If a neutral expert fails, the dispute goes to CoA. It is a generally seven-member ad-hoc arbitral tribunal, determines its procedures and decisions by majority vote.
- The Indian government has consistently opposed the proceedings of The Hague-based Court of Arbitration ever since its constitution by the World Bank in October 2022.
Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack (April 2025), where over 25 Indian civilians were killed by Pakistan-based militants, India placed the Treaty in abeyance citing Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism.
Supplemental award by the Court of Arbitration (CoA):
- The tribunal rejected India’s suspension of the Treaty. It held that the treaty does not allow unilateral suspension or abeyance by any party.
- It stated that India’s decision after April 2025 (following the Pahalgam attack) to suspend the treaty cannot override the binding dispute‑settlement mechanism under Article IX and Annexure G.
- The Court unanimously ruled that it has full authority to decide on disputes related to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydropower projects, despite India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance.
India’s Response:
- India called the court illegal, the proceedings irrelevant, and reiterated that the Treaty stands in abeyance until Pakistan abjures cross-border terrorism.
- During this period, India is not obligated to comply with the treaty’s provisions, rendering any arbitration proceedings or decisions by this body without jurisdiction or legal standing.
India's Strategic Choices:
- India can continue boycotting the Court of Arbitration to deny its legitimacy.
- It can withdraw from the Treaty entirely, though this carries risks.
- It might also maximise its legal entitlements including the neutral expert’s forthcoming decision, and use structural advantages to pressure Pakistan without breaching the agreement.
- India can offer conditional cooperation using upstream geography as leverage, if Pakistan meets clear and verifiable conditions.
- India should expand its infrastructure and fully utilise both its entitled share of the eastern rivers and its permissible use of the western ones under the Treaty.
- Craft a diplomatic path that connects peace efforts with counter-terror commitments.
India needs to communicate clearly to the world that India is not undermining peace, but seeking meaningful cooperation based on accountability.
Also Read: India puts Indus Waters Treaty on Hold with Pakistan