The Future of the Indus Waters Treaty: Restore, Reform, or
Renegotiate
Introduction
The 2025 crisis has raised an existential issue of the relevance of transboundary the Indus Waters Treaty. Can it survive the twenty-first century?. For over six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has endured despite multiple wars, political and military standoffs and hostilities between India and Pakistan. It was generally considered an anomaly and unique in global water law as a treaty that continued to survive through changing geopolitical tides. Both countries valued it as an important pillar of stability in a volatile region.
But the very survival of this treaty has been put on the line in 2025 following the Pahalgam terrorist attack and India’s subsequent decision to rescind its cooperation with Pakistan on matters related to the IWT. While technically not rescinding, India’s decision to withhold cooperation on all matters concerning the treaty has created the most severe crisis for the treaty since its inception in 1960. This crisis has significantly altered the nature of the debate on the future of the IWT. Previously, the discussion revolved around whether the treaty had served the interests of both nations well or not over the past six decades. Now the focus of the debate has shifted to what should be done going forward – restore the treaty to its previous status, reform it substantially, or renegotiate a completely new agreement.
Three Options
There are three obvious options to choose from – restore, reform or renegotiate.
Restoration
Restoration means returning to the situation that prevailed prior to India’s decision in January 2025 to withdraw India’s cooperation with Pakistan on all matters related to the IWT. The restoration would require the resumption of permanent meetings of the Indus Water Commission, resumption of hydrological data exchange, notice of new works, and other procedures as set out in the treaty. Restoration, if feasible, will provide an important signal to the public and the water sector that the treaty is still relevant and that the water cooperation between the countries continues to contribute to regional stability.
However, mere restoration of the status quo ante will not address the treaty’s inabilityf to respond to emerging needs. The IWT was negotiated in the 1950s and signed in 1960. At that time, there were neither climate change worries nor satellites to monitor glaciers, nor groundwater concerns. The treaty does not speak to contemporary issues such as climate and environmental flows, flood management, sedimentation, or glacier melt-rates – despite the fact that it governs one of the most climate-sensitive river systems on the planet.
Meanwhile, the challenges of water resource management in the Indus Basin are becoming more sophisticated and multi-faceted by the day. The basin is one of the most glacier-dependent river systems on the planet, and scientists have noted trends towards warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns that could lead to more frequent and prolonged extreme weather events. Added to this are the rising populations and growing demand for water for agriculture, industry, and power generation in both countries. All of this requires a much more robust and sophisticated institutional framework than what was in place in 1960 and enshrined in the IWT. Thus, many analysts are now suggesting a second option – reform.
Reform
Reform would mean maintaining the treaty’s core principles but updating its annexes and other details and procedures to make it relevant and effective in the 21st century. This could entail adding provisions for joint climate monitoring, hydrological studies, flood forecasting, drought management, and related areas. Reform would also allow adjustments to the dispute-resolution mechanisms of the treaty, which are currently being tested, as India and Pakistan have simultaneously taken the issue of hydropower projects on the western rivers to multiple dispute forums. Experts agree that reforming the treaty would enable it to better address contemporary issues and effectively manage future disputes while avoiding unnecessary delays and political posturing.
Renegotiate
The third option is obviously to renegotiate a completely new treaty. While time-consuming and politically fraught, it would allow both sides to update it based on modern principles and needs, including basin-wide approaches, flexible allocation and use-sharing mechanisms, integrated reservoir operation, joint management of specific structures, and so on. However, it also seems unlikely given the current political standoff between the two countries and the risks associated with further delays. Besides, renegotiating a completely new treaty raises the risk of prolonging the uncertainty for an unnecessarily long period of time.
The future of the treaty cannot be discussed in purely geopolitical terms. Even more importantly, technical realities must also be factored in when considering restoration, reform, or renegotiation.
Water experts are unanimous in suggesting that the basin countries should move away from the notion that by building dams they can gain complete control over the river. The physical realities of the Indus Basin suggest otherwise. All three western rivers carry huge volumes of water driven by glacial melt-water and snowfall. The storage capacity of existing projects is relatively small compared to the volumes of water flowing through the rivers each year. Meanwhile, the majority of the dams built so far are run-of-the-river structures that have limited storage capacity. Diverting large volumes of water from the three rivers for purposes beyond domestic use in the basin requires a quantum leap in engineering capacity as well as approvals from local environmental authorities. It is much more realistic to pursue cooperative measures for sustainable management of the river system rather than attempting to gain unilateral control over river flows.
In addition, climate change is expected to intensify, adding to the list of challenges posed by the Indus Waters Treaty. The Indus River Basin covers a huge area and is home to roughly 300 million people. It has one of the world’s largest contiguous irrigation systems, which supports food production, hydropower generation, and environmental sustainability. With the climate change impacts threatening the stability of the basin, it becomes even more important to invest in shared scientific research, data exchange, and adaptive measures, even more so than in times of relative hydrological stability.
A look at the international experience also suggests that long-standing river treaties undergo periodic revisions in order to stay relevant and address new challenges. Many other river treaties around the world, including those related to the Rhine, Danube, Mekong, and Senegal rivers, have been modified several times since their original adoption. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to expect that the IWT may also need to be revised periodically, even as renegotiation of a treaty entirely may not be necessary.
Looking at the entire menu of options, the future course of action does not seem to involve either total restoration of the status quo ante or a complete break with it. It is much more likely that either a phased restoration with specific changes and/or additional measures to address contemporary challenges will be implemented in stages. The future of the IWT needs to be decided based on a pragmatic assessment of opportunities and threats. One important thing is clear – the treaty has served its purpose well. The future of the IWT will depend not only on the current geopolitical moment but also on the statesmen-like qualities of both nations to ensure the long-term viability of the treaty. Water has historically been a source of confrontation and competition between India and Pakistan. However, as the two nations confront a climate crisis that threatens to alter hydrological regimes, hydro-politics will need to transform from being an arena for conflict to an area of strategic partnership.
0 Comments