Critically examine the implications of The Hague Court of Arbitration’s ruling on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) which highlights the growing tension between legal obligations and geopolitical realities. (15M)

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960 by India and Pakistan with the World Bank as a guarantor, is a landmark water-sharing agreement. Despite the geopolitical turbulence, the Treaty has generally been adhered to, exemplifying cooperative engagement over a vital resource.

Features of the Indus Waters Treaty:

1. Water Allocation:
   1. India was allocated unrestricted use of the eastern rivers: Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej.
   1. Pakistan was given rights over the western rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, with India allowed non-consumptive uses (e.g., hydropower, agriculture, domestic use) under restrictions.
2. Permanent Indus Commission (PIC):
   1. A bilateral body comprising one commissioner from each country that meets annually to address routine issues.
3. Dispute Resolution Mechanism (Article IX):
   1. Step 1: Resolution at the level of the PIC.
   1. Step 2: Appointment of a Neutral Expert (NE) for technical matters.
   1. Step 3: Escalation to a Court of Arbitration (CoA) for legal or interpretational disputes.

The Hague Tribunal’s 2025 Ruling:

On June 27, 2025, the Court of Arbitration at The Hague reaffirmed its jurisdiction to adjudicate Pakistan’s objections over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, despite India’s boycott and Pakistan’s refusal to participate.

• Stance of the court: The court held that India’s suspension of its participation was “unjustified” and that Pakistan’s objections should be resolved legally.
• India’s stance: India rejected the ruling as legally flawed and geopolitically tone-deaf, arguing that treaties depend on trust, which is eroded by Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism (e.g., Pahalgam attack in April 2023).

Implications:

Legal vs Geopolitical Realism:

• The ruling reflects the legal integrity of the Treaty but ignores on-ground realities where state-sponsored terrorism erodes diplomatic goodwill.
• Legal compliance cannot operate in a vacuum as trust and reciprocity are central to international agreements.

Misuse of Legal Mechanisms:

• Pakistan’s selective engagement eschewing bilateral dialogue whilepursuing international arbitration also undermines the cooperative intent of the Treaty.
• Despite the 2013 CoA ruling permitting the Kishanganga project under conditions, Pakistan continues to raise objections, weaponizing the Treaty for political leverage.

Treaty Fatigue in India:

• India views its role as an upper riparian and its usage of western rivers as within Treaty limits.
• Thus, placing the Treaty “in abeyance” is seen as assertive diplomacy, not retaliation. It is in accordance with India’s stance of “Peace treaties cannot coexist with terror.”

Further challenges facing Indus Waters Treaty (IWT):

• Climate Change: Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) does not account for climate variability, glacial melt, or groundwater stress a growing concern with projected 75% depletion in the Indus basin by 2050.
• Interpretational Gaps: Dispute resolution stages lack clarity, leading to dual forums (Neutral Expert vs. CoA).
• Delayed Projects: Legal challenges stall India’s legitimate hydroelectric infrastructure plans, affecting energy security in Jammu & Kashmir.

Way Forward:

1. Reassert Diplomatic Channels:
   1. India should continue engaging through the Permanent Indus Commission, while making re-engagement conditional on Pakistan curbing terror infrastructure.
2. Utilize Full Legal Entitlements:
   1. India must expedite the development of its full share of eastern rivers and permissible projects on western rivers, especially in border regions.
3. Push for Treaty Modernization:
   1. Seek bilateral renegotiation or reform of the Treaty to address climate change, groundwater, and modern hydropower technology.
4. Strengthen Global Narrative:
   1. India should clarify to the international community that legal mechanisms cannot substitute for political sincerity and security assurances.
5. Use IWT for Climate Collaboration:
   1. Instead of weaponizing water, Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) can evolve into a platform for joint climate adaptation in the fragile Himalayan basin.

Conclusion:

India must pursue a strategic balance asserting its rights firmly, upholding treaty commitments, and reshaping the water discourse around security, sustainability, and reciprocity. The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) resilience now depends not just on legality, but on political will, regional cooperation, and adaptive reforms.

‘+1’ Value addition:

• PM remarked “blood and water cannot flow together”.
• The Kishenganga was constructed after the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in India’s favour. But Pakistan continues to object to this and the Ratle dam.
• The treaty was negotiated from 1951 to 1960, with significant involvement from the World Bank, which facilitated dialogue between India and Pakistan.

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/indus-waters-treaty-india-boycott-court-of-arbitration-ruling-10120536

La Excellence IAS Academy, the best IAS coaching in Hyderabad, known for delivering quality content and conceptual clarity for UPSC 2025 preparation.

FOLLOW US ON:

◉ YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/@CivilsPrepTeam

◉ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LaExcellenceIAS

◉ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laexcellenceiasacademy/

GET IN TOUCH:

Contact us at info@laex.in, https://laex.in/contact-us/

or Call us @ +91 9052 29 2929, +91 9052 99 2929, +91 9154 24 2140

OUR BRANCHES:
Head Office: H No: 1-10-225A, Beside AEVA Fertility Center, Ashok Nagar Extension, VV Giri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, 500020

Madhapur: Flat no: 301, survey no 58-60, Guttala begumpet Madhapur metro pillar: 1524,  Rangareddy Hyderabad, Telangana 500081

Bangalore: Plot No: 99, 2nd floor, 80 Feet Road, Beside Poorvika Mobiles, Chandra Layout, Attiguppe, Near Vijaya Nagara, Bengaluru, 560040