Indus Waters Treaty (1960): Technical and Social-Based Defects 

1. Introduction

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed on 19 September 1960 by India and Pakistan under the supervision of the World Bank. This treaty provided for the division of the waters of the six rivers in the Indus River Basin between the two countries. However, despite being one of the most successful agreements on water sharing, the IWT has numerous technical and social-based defects. The technical shortcomings of the IWT include outdated hydrological assumptions, the absence of a climate change response, a fixed water allocation, insufficient storage, ambiguous hydropower design requirements, the lack of groundwater management, and no environmental water flow. Social-based shortcomings of the IWT include the absence of community participation, exclusion of livelihood issues, no gender perspective, and the lack of environmental justice provisions. However, the IWT has several recommendations and solutions for water-related disputes between India and Pakistan.

2. Technical Defects of the Indus Waters Treaty

2.1 Outdated Hydrological Assumptions

Indus Waters Treaty used hydrological data obtained from research conducted between 1920 and 1950. At the time of negotiation, there were relatively few glaciers, a different climate regime, lower population, and no concerns about environmental issues.

Now, the situation is entirely different: Himalayan glaciers are disappearing, the climate is changing, and the population is growing. As a result, the IWT works with obsolete and incomplete information about water resources. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the IWT to establish more accurate water allocation policies that consider current and future changes in water levels.

2.2 No provision for climate change

When the IWT was negotiated in 1960, climate change was not a concept that policymakers wanted to consider. However, now, researchers note that climate change is an urgent problem that the IWT does not address. Today, the IWT basin is experiencing glacier melt, shifts in snow and rainfall patterns, and an increase in extreme weather events. For example, the number of severe floods and prolonged droughts has increased. Therefore, climate change is expected to have a severe impact on water resources, but the IWT does not have special provisions for addressing the impact of rising temperatures.

2.3 Fixed water allocation

Under the IWT, the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) belong to India, while the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) belong to Pakistan. The rivers’ division is permanent and does not consider the annual flow rates of the rivers or their distribution throughout the year. Most modern treaties use a more flexible approach to allocate water resources instead of dividing entire rivers between countries.

2.4 Inadequate storage

India has a right to make storage on western rivers. However, the IWT does not provide sufficient guidance for constructing storage facilities and dams. Moreover, the allocation of the storage capacities was done sixty years ago when the need for them was lower than today. Therefore, today, experts suggest that more attention should be paid to the creation of storage facilities to regulate floods, droughts, and hydropower.

Meanwhile, Pakistan cannot use the storage facilities because the IWT focuses on replacing rather than storing water. As a result, the capacity of the IWT to respond to current and future challenges is limited by the lack of storage infrastructure.

2.5  Ambiguity on hydropower design criteria

There have been several disputes about the Indian hydropower projects’ design criteria, including spillway gates, pondage, intake, freeboard, drawdown flushing, and gated spillways, among others. For example, the Baglihar Dam, Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant, and Ratle Hydroelectric Plant have faced numerous disputes. The IWT allows for multiple design interpretations by engineers, resulting in disagreements between India and Pakistan. Consequently, the IWT has several technical deficiencies that hinder the proper implementation and management of hydropower projects.

2.6 The absence of groundwater management

The IWT does not address the issue of groundwater management. The IWT does not consider aquifers, conjunctive use of water, or recharge. However, today, both Pakistan and India use groundwater for agricultural, domestic, and industrial purposes. As a result, the omission of groundwater management from the IWT is considered a significant technical shortcoming.

2.7 No environmental flow requirements

The IWT does not stipulate the need to maintain minimum flows in the rivers within the basin. In fact, it does not mention anything about the environment, ecology, and environmental flows. Modern water treaties recognize that rivers need water to maintain wetlands, fisheries, deltas, and ecosystems. The IWT is outdated, and its main shortcoming is the absence of environmental flow requirements.

2.8 No provisions on water quality

Modern water treaties cover not only water quantity but also water quality. They stipulate the responsibilities of states in preventing water pollution and maintaining clean water. However, the IWT only addresses water quantity. The IWT does not stipulate the responsibility of states for water quality. Thus, the treaty has a significant shortcoming, as it does not consider water pollution and poor water quality.

2.9 No sediment management

Indus River carries one of the largest sediment loads in the world. This problem causes significant difficulties for both countries because silt reduces the capacity of reservoirs, clogs canal systems, and accelerates turbine erosion. However, the IWT does not have special provisions for addressing sedimentation challenges. Although the IWT allows the states to store water in reservoirs, none of the IWT articles mention the need for a joint effort to manage sediment.

2.10 Weak flood management

The IWT does not have a sophisticated enough mechanism for managing floods. Today, experts believe that the IWT needs to develop a more comprehensive flood management system. For example, policymakers need to consider real-time reservoir operations, coordination between states, and release of water during floods. Floods cause severe damage to infrastructure, property, and people. The Indus basin has seen a growing number of extreme weather events in recent years, so the IWT needs updated flood management measures.

2.11 Limited data exchange

According to the IWT, the states need to provide each other with specific hydrological information about the rivers in the basin. However, the treaty does not stipulate an obligation to maintain regular and up-to-date data exchange. In addition, the IWT does not require states to share real-time information using emerging technologies, such as satellite imagery or monitoring. Researchers note that the issue of data exchange creates tensions between states because each country wants to track the other’s data.

2.12 No integrated water resources management (IWRM)

Modern treaties recognize the importance of an integrated approach to water resources management. They recommend considering all components in a river basin, including water, land, the environment, and energy.

However, the IWT focuses mainly on water resources without considering the surrounding environment and land. Moreover, the IWT does not address the impact of the treaty’s implementation on ecosystems, wildlife, and people. According to researchers, these problems are caused by the fact that the IWT is primarily a document on hydraulic engineering, and not on basin management.

2.13 Engineering focus instead of basin management

The IWT is primarily an engineering treaty that focuses on building structures, such as canals. It stipulates technical specifications, such as the need to build dams on specific rivers and the need to construct polders on certain rivers. However, the IWT does not cover many aspects related to integrated water resources management (IWRM).

2.14 No mechanism for treaty revision

Many modern treaties include a revision clause that stipulates that the treaty may be revised every 20 years. At the same time, the IWT does not have an obligation for states to revise it periodically. Therefore, the IWT revision requires a joint decision of both states. However, so far, the two countries have been unable to reach an agreement on IWT revision.

3. Social-Based Defects

3.1 No public participation

The IWT was negotiated between government officials and experts, but it did not involve local communities, farmers, or indigenous peoples. Moreover, the IWT did not consider the needs of other groups, such as fishermen, engineers, and ordinary citizens. Thus, the IWT is primarily a treaty between governments, and not between people.

3.2  Communities were not involved

Ordinary people, including farmers, local communities, and indigenous peoples, were not involved in developing the IWT. It means that these people did not have a direct say in how the water in local rivers was shared. Therefore, local communities felt that they were not considered in the IWT, so they did not want to participate in the implementation of the IWT.

3.3 Livelihood issues were not addressed

The IWT stipulates that the division of water resources between India and Pakistan will benefit both countries. However, the IWT does not mention anything about protecting the interests of local communities and fishermen who live near the rivers or canals.

It was assumed that the allocation of water resources would solve all the problems of local people. However, the communities and their livelihoods were not considered in the IWT. Researchers note that an indirect but serious impact of the IWT on people includes the impact on their livelihoods and access to water.

3.4 No gender perspective

Women play a critical role in many aspects of water use, including water carrying, agricultural production, and livestock. However, the IWT does not address gender-specific issues.

Today, many water treaties address gender equality and women’s needs in water use. Experts note that the IWT has a significant social-based shortcoming because it does not recognize the importance of paying attention to gender.

3.5 Ignoring knowledge and traditions

Local communities and indigenous peoples have their own traditional practices and knowledge about nature and the environment. However, the IWT was developed without taking these practices and knowledge into account. Thus, the IWT does not mention traditional methods that local people use to predict the weather or store water.

3.6 No environmental justice

Indus River flows through several countries. However, the IWT does not stipulate that states must consider the needs of all local communities. Some people living in the basin suffer from insufficient river flow, water salinity, and ecological problems. However, the IWT does not stipulate that states should compensate these communities for the harm done to them.

3.7 Social impact assessment

Many modern projects require an environmental and social impact assessment before they are implemented. These assessments identify what negative consequences a project will have on natural life, as well as whether vulnerable populations will bear additional burdens. However, the IWT does not stipulate the need for such assessments. Researchers note that the IWT is not suitable for addressing complex and multidimensional problems, such as social ones.

3.8 Community-level dispute resolution

The IWT establishes the Permanent Indus Commission, which regulates all disputes between states about the implementation of the IWT. In addition, the IWT established a procedure for resolving disputes based on the suggestions of Neutral Experts, as well as a process for resolving disputes through international arbitration. However, the IWT does not stipulate a procedure for communities to express their views and resolve disputes at the local level.

3.9 No human right to water

The IWT does not recognize the right to water. The IWT does not stipulate that people must have access to clean water. Today, many communities around the world suffer from a lack of access to clean water. As a result, many modern treaties stipulate the right to water. However, the IWT is an outdated document that does not recognize or protect this fundamental human right.

3.10 Unequal regional development concerns

Some local communities feel that the IWT violates their interests and rights because it does not allow them to exploit water resources freely for their needs. At the same time, some of the same communities believe that the IWT caused regional inequalities. The IWT does not address these issues and shortcomings, so it is considered one of the IWT’s social-based defects.

3.11 Limited transparency

The IWT negotiations were held between government officials and experts, but ordinary people did not have access to the discussion details. Moreover, the IWT does not stipulate that information about water resources and dispute resolution procedures must be publicly available. Therefore, many people do not have the necessary knowledge about the Indus River, water resources, and the IWT itself.

3.12 Growing population concerns

According to the IWT, water is allocated to Pakistan and India based on water resources, not on population sizes. In 1960, when the IWT was concluded, Pakistan had about 46 million inhabitants, and India had about 450 million inhabitants. Today, both countries have a much higher population, so the demand for water is much higher. The growing population imposes additional pressure on water resources. Thus, the IWT does not consider the population size when allocating water, which has become a problem for people in both countries.

Conclusion

The IWT is a historic treaty that has withstood the test of time and continues to serve its purpose today. However, technical and social-based defects limit the ability of the IWT to respond to current and future challenges. The IWT has several recommendations and solutions for disputes between states, but modern water treaties have more effective mechanisms for resolving conflicts and protecting the environment. Today, many water policy analysts believe that the IWT needs to be improved by adopting more transparent procedures, taking into account the rights of different social groups, and providing for the revision of the treaty in the future.