Re-reading the water treaty
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
Analysis
Named sources
Context piece
- India and Pakistan officials are publicly debating the 65-year-old Indus Waters Treaty, with differing interpretations of its fairness and current relevance.
- India argues it negotiated in good faith, surrendered most water, and funded Pakistan's infrastructure, yet faces constant project challenges.
- Pakistan counters that the treaty protects its water entitlement against upstream discretion, and its delays were due diligence, not obstruction, especially given climate change impacts.
A public debate over the 65-year-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has emerged between senior officials from India and Pakistan, highlighting deep-seated disagreements about its fairness and current applicability.
No other upper riparian has surrendered the larger share of a river system and then paid the downstream state to use it.
Dr. P.K. Saxena, former Indian Commissioner for Indus Waters, published a detailed critique arguing India negotiated in good faith, ceded 80 percent of the system's water, and financed Pakistan's infrastructure. He contends that India has borne all obligations while Pakistan reaps all benefits, citing prolonged Pakistani challenges to Indian hydropower projects like Baglihar and Kishenganga. Saxena concludes that the treaty is unsustainable under these conditions.
Every major Indian hydropower project on the western rivers, Baglihar, Kishenganga, Pakal Dul, Tulbul, has faced prolonged Pakistani challenge.
Syed Mehar Ali Shah, Pakistan's serving commissioner, countered in Dawn, disputing Saxena's conclusions. Shah emphasized that Pakistan's "entitlement" to 80 percent of the water is a protected right against upstream control, a threat revived by India's current stance. He argued Pakistan's initial delays were necessary due diligence to ensure western rivers could support its needs, not obstruction. Shah also pointed to climate change disrupting water availability, making the treaty's original assumptions increasingly irrelevant.
A treaty, Saxena concludes, cannot hold when one party bears all the obligations and the other collects all the benefits.
The exchange, described as the most technically precise public debate on the Indus since the treaty's signing, reveals a fundamental divergence. While India views the treaty as a burden due to perceived Pakistani obstructionism, Pakistan sees it as a vital safeguard against Indian water control, particularly in a changing climate.
Even as claims are disputed, climate change is disrupting ecosystems and monsoon cycles. The 80-20 split is real. The inference is false.
DistantNews Editorial
Originally published by Dawn. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.
More Stories
From Our Blog
What Gets Lost (and Found) When News Is Translated
The Critical Role of Diaspora Media in Global News
What Travellers Should Know About Countries with Restricted Press
A Digital Nomad's Guide to Following Local News
How the Same Story Looks Different in Different Countries
