Pakistan Is Fully And Squarely Responsible For Breaching IWT
1. Background: What is the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)?
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan under World Bank mediation, is a water-sharing agreement over the Indus River system.
It divides the waters of six rivers:
The three western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, Chenab—allocated to Pakistan.
The three eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, Sutlej—allocated to India.
Both countries are obligated to respect the treaty provisions and not interfere with each other's water use beyond permitted limits.
2. Allegations of Breach
India has repeatedly alleged that Pakistan has:
Obstructed or interfered with the flow of waters it is entitled to.
Constructed unauthorized projects or violated treaty provisions.
Used the waters in a way detrimental to India’s interests.
Conversely, Pakistan has accused India of violating the treaty by building hydroelectric projects on the western rivers (which are primarily allocated to Pakistan).
3. Why Is Pakistan Said to Be Responsible for Breach?
Under the treaty, Pakistan is supposed to ensure free flow of the eastern rivers’ waters to India without obstruction.
Any obstruction, diversion, or interference by Pakistan can be construed as a breach.
Additionally, Pakistan is responsible for not tampering with Indian water infrastructure and respecting the agreed water-sharing arrangements.
4. Legal Framework and Obligations Under IWT
Article Highlights of IWT:
Article III: Obligation not to obstruct water flow of the rivers allocated.
Article IV: Permits India to use the eastern rivers; Pakistan the western.
Article IX: Establishes a Permanent Indus Commission for resolving disputes.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Includes:
Permanent Indus Commission
Neutral Expert
Court of Arbitration
5. Important Cases and Decisions
🧑⚖️ A. The Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project Arbitration (2013-2018)
India built a hydroelectric project on the Kishanganga River (a tributary of Jhelum).
Pakistan objected, alleging violation of the treaty.
The Court of Arbitration (set up under IWT) ruled:
India could proceed but must ensure minimum flow of water to Pakistan.
Both parties must cooperate to respect treaty obligations.
Demonstrated the treaty’s legal mechanisms and need for compliance by both sides.
🧑⚖️ B. The Baglihar Dam Arbitration (2005-2007)
Pakistan challenged India’s Baglihar dam project on the Chenab River.
The Neutral Expert ruled that India’s design largely complied with IWT but suggested modifications.
Emphasized technical compliance and good faith.
🧑⚖️ C. India-Pakistan Permanent Indus Commission Meetings
Frequent meetings to address issues.
Pakistan sometimes accused of non-cooperation, delayed responses, or politicizing the issues.
6. India’s Legal Position on Pakistan’s Breach
India claims Pakistan has violated treaty obligations by:
Not ensuring uninterrupted flow of water.
Using water for purposes not allowed under the treaty.
Hindering India’s projects on eastern rivers.
India argues:
Pakistan is responsible for any reduction in flow or tampering with waters.
Pakistan’s political motives often impact technical cooperation.
7. Pakistan’s Counter-Arguments
Pakistan alleges India’s projects on western rivers violate IWT.
Claims India has blocked or reduced water flow to Pakistan.
Uses diplomatic and legal channels to challenge India’s actions.
8. Broader Implications
IWT is regarded as one of the most successful water-sharing treaties in the world.
However, political tensions between India and Pakistan often spill over into water disputes.
Breach of treaty obligations has potential to escalate conflicts affecting both countries’ water security.
9. International Law and Treaty Compliance
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969):
Treaties must be performed in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).
Breach by one party entitles the other party to take remedial action.
The IWT’s dispute resolution procedures reflect principles of international water law and treaty compliance.
10. Summary
| Aspect | India’s Position | Pakistan’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Treaty obligation | Pakistan must ensure uninterrupted flow of eastern rivers to India | India must not obstruct western rivers to Pakistan |
| Alleged breach | Pakistan obstructing water flow, non-cooperation | India violating treaty through western river projects |
| Legal recourse | Arbitration, Court of Arbitration, Permanent Indus Commission | Same as above |
| International law basis | Treaty compliance under Vienna Convention and IWT provisions | Same as above |
| Political context | India alleges breach due to security and water needs | Pakistan alleges breach citing water scarcity and geopolitical concerns |
11. Conclusion
The statement that Pakistan is fully and squarely responsible for breaching the IWT is based on India’s view of treaty violations and water obstruction by Pakistan.
However, the treaty envisages cooperation, technical arbitration, and legal dispute resolution, and both countries share responsibilities.
The treaty’s strength lies in its legal mechanisms, but its success depends on good faith implementation by both parties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments