Latest news with #IndusWatersTreaty1960
The Print
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Print
India rejects court arbitration on Kishanganga-Ratle dispute, calls it Pakistan's ‘latest charade'
The statement added: 'India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India's position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and consequently any proceedings before this forum and any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void.' 'Today, the illegal Court of Arbitration, purportedly constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, albeit in brazen violation of it, has issued what it characterizes as a 'supplemental award' on its competence concerning the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,' the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said in a statement Friday. New Delhi: India 'categorically rejected' the supplemental award on competence announced by 'the-so called' Court of Arbitration on the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir, terming it as the 'latest charade' by Pakistan to 'escape accountability' as the 'global epicentre' of terrorism. The strong statement comes as India and Pakistan have continued to lock-horns over the 330 MW Kishanganga project on the Kishanganga river and the 850 MW Ratle hydroelectric project on the Chenab river. The issues first surfaced in 2007, when Pakistan raised six objections to India's Kishanganga project. Four of the six issues were technical, while two were legal. In 2009, Pakistan went to the Court of Arbitration over the two legal questions, which had issued its final award in 2013 allowing India to divert the waters of the Kishanganga with conditions. However, the technical issues remained unresolved, with Islamabad also raising issues with the Ratle hydroelectric project. India maintained that the issue should be dealt with through the appointment of a 'neutral expert', which is another way to resolve disputes under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). In 2015, Pakistan sought the appointment of a neutral expert, however, backtracking later and calling for the disputes to be resolved through a court of arbitration. New Delhi rejected the constitution of a court of arbitration. The World Bank started both processes–appointing a neutral expert and seeking the formation of a court of arbitration–simultaneously. India has not participated in the arbitration proceedings since. Earlier this year, the neutral expert–Michael Lino–backed India's stance, ruling that he had the competence to deal with the issue at hand. However, following the Pahalgam terrorist attack that killed 26 people, New Delhi moved to hold the treaty in 'abeyance' until Islamabad stops supporting cross-border terrorism. 'Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, India has in exercise of its rights as a sovereign nation under international law, placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism,' the MEA statement said. It added: 'Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty. No Court of Arbitration, much less this illegally constituted arbitral body which has no existence in the eye of law, has the jurisdiction to examine the legality of India's actions in exercise of its rights as a sovereign.' Pakistan has called India's move to hold the treaty in abeyance unlawful and has promised that any diversion of the Indus waters could constitute an act of war. However, New Delhi has maintained its diplomatic position. 'This latest charade at Pakistan's behest is yet another desperate attempt by it to escape accountability for its role as the global epicenter of terrorism. Pakistan's resort to this fabricated arbitration mechanism is consistent with its decades-long pattern of deception and manipulation of international forums,' the MEA said (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: With Indus Waters Treaty on hold, India working to revive Tulbul project on Kashmir's Wular Lake
Indian Express
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
First time, Pakistan says willing to discuss Indus Waters Treaty terms
DAYS AFTER India notified Pakistan that it was placing the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance with 'immediate effect' following the Pahalgam terror attack, Islamabad has — for the first time — signalled its willingness to discuss Delhi's concerns about the treaty, The Indian Express has learned. Pakistan's Water Resources Secretary, Syed Ali Murtaza, is understood to have recently responded to India's formal intimation of the Union Cabinet's decision to keep the treaty in abeyance, and offered to, on behalf of his government, discuss the specific terms India objects to. Sources aware of the development said, Murtaza, however, questioned the basis of the decision, pointing out that the treaty itself did not have any exit clause. Murtaza's offer to discuss India's objections is especially significant because despite two prior notices — in January 2023 and again in September 2024 —requesting a 'review and modification' of the IWT, Pakistan had not expressed its explicit willingness so far. It is only after India placed the treaty in abeyance with immediate effect after the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, that Pakistan seems to have signalled its willingness. The Indian Express called Murtaza's office on Wednesday but did not hear back. Pakistan's willingness to engage on the Indus Waters Treaty is being discussed within the government now that hostilities have paused after four days of military confrontation. India is keen to utilise the water in the river, by building dams and reservoirs to store water, and utilise it for power generation too. Islamabad's engagement is aimed at stalling such plans, since any construction would change the status quo on the ground. Murtaza's missive was in response to his counterpart Debashree Mukherjee's letter of April 24, two days after the Pahalgam attack. 'The obligation to honour a treaty in good faith is fundamental to a treaty. However, what we have seen instead is sustained cross border terrorism by Pakistan targeting the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,' Mukherjee wrote. 'The resulting security uncertainties have directly impeded India's full utilisation of its rights under the Treaty. Furthermore, apart from other breaches committed by it, Pakistan has refused to respond to India's request to enter into negotiations as envisaged under the Treaty and is thus in breach of the Treaty. The Government of India has hereby decided that the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect,' she further wrote in her letter. Since then, Operation Sindoor, a counter-strike launched by India hitting terror sites in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan, and air bases in the country, has come to a pause after the two countries agreed to cease all military action by land, air and sea from 5 p.m. on May 10. But New Delhi has remained firm on maintaining all coercive diplomatic measures, the most important being the suspension of the IWT. On Tuesday, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal reiterated this stance, saying, 'The Indus Waters Treaty was concluded in the spirit of goodwill and friendship, as specified in the preamble of the treaty… India will keep the treaty in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism. Please also note that climate change, demographic shifts and technological changes have created new realities on the ground as well.' This aligns with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's first message to the nation after Operation Sindoor, in which he signalled his intention to keep the treaty suspended by saying, 'water and blood cannot flow together'. It is understood that if and when negotiations begin on modifications to the treaty, India will insist that these be a completely bilateral exercise with no involvement of any third party. Accordingly, it is unlikely that India would agree to the World Bank's — or anyone else's — assistance in brokering revisions. Among the clauses that India is keen to modify is the dispute-resolution mechanism under the IWT. Currently, both countries and the World Bank seem to have different understanding or interpretation of how treaty disputes should be resolved. India would like this to be laid out in black and white — preferably as a graded resolution system — rather than having two forums (a court of arbitration and a neutral expert) address the same issue, as has happened with the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects. The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, after nine years of negotiations between India and Pakistan. It has 12 Articles and eight Annexures (from A to H). As per its provisions, all the water of the 'Eastern Rivers' — Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — shall be available for the 'unrestricted use' of India; Pakistan, meanwhile, shall receive water from the 'Western Rivers' — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. Harikishan Sharma, Senior Assistant Editor at The Indian Express' National Bureau, specializes in reporting on governance, policy, and data. He covers the Prime Minister's Office and pivotal central ministries, such as the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, Ministry of Cooperation, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Rural Development, and Ministry of Jal Shakti. His work primarily revolves around reporting and policy analysis. In addition to this, he authors a weekly column titled "STATE-ISTICALLY SPEAKING," which is prominently featured on The Indian Express website. In this column, he immerses readers in narratives deeply rooted in socio-economic, political, and electoral data, providing insightful perspectives on these critical aspects of governance and society. ... Read More
Express Tribune
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
IWT suspension: India's untenable legal arguments
Listen to article Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, the Indian government, based on unverified information, accused Pakistan of "support for cross-border terrorism" and announced that "the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect." India has invoked Article XII of the IWT. At the outset, it needs to be clarified that any modification or termination of the IWT, is contingent upon a "by a duly ratified treaty". In the absence of such a treaty, any unilateral action is constituted as a breach of the Treaty. India's decision is predicated on two main arguments. The first is a claim of a "fundamental change in circumstances" and the second is an argument that "good faith is fundamental to a treaty". India claims that a "fundamental change" has occurred due to "altered population demographics" and "to accelerate the development of clean energy". India's plea corresponds to the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus ("things thus standing"). This allows for the termination or withdrawal from a treaty if there has been a "fundamental change" from those existing at the time of its conclusion. It is codified in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 ("VCLT"). The doctrine serves as an exception to pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept"). Article 62 lays down strict conditions for the applicability of "fundamental change", the main determinants being that the change was unforeseen and that the change radically transformed treaty obligations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has provided some clarity. In 1997, during the Gab?íkovo-Nagymaros case, Hungary suspended a treaty due to environmental and political changes. Following Czechoslovakia's dissolution, Slovakia became the successor state to the treaty obligations and Hungary argued that the treaty was terminated. The ICJ rejected this claim and although it acknowledged a political change, it rejected the fundamental change of circumstances argument. India's reliance on the "fundamental change of circumstances", akin to Hungary's, is untenable. The ICJ has emphasised that even significant and unforeseeable political shifts do not justify treaty termination. The ICJ requires that such changes "radically transform the extent of obligations". India's claim, that population growth or climate change constitute fundamental change, is flawed, as these are predictable phenomena. India's own actions confirm this. This is evident from India's early initiatives to manage population growth, such as the family planning programme launched in 1952. Climate change is also a predictable trend. The concept of climate change, due to human activities, was first proposed in the 19th century, decades before the signing of the IWT. With regard to India's "good faith" argument it is important to understand the parameters of this doctrine. The underlying requirement is that good faith operates in tandem with pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept"). The ICJ held, in the Nuclear Tests Case that, "just as the very rule of pacta sunt servanda in the law of treaties is based on good faith, so also is the binding character of an international obligation." Thus, the spirit of good faith is to respect international obligations rather than breaking them. The sanctity of treaty obligations has also been affirmed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) which has held that, "treaty obligations are to be executed in perfect good faith, [...] and [limit] the exercise of sovereignty of the State bound by a treaty." As a violator, India's argument of Pakistan's lack of good faith is completely misplaced. India has not established how Pakistan's obligations, with regard to the IWT, have not been undertaken in good faith. On the contrary, Pakistan has remained fully committed to resolving all differences and disputes under the Treaty mechanisms, as is evidenced by its engagement with the Court of Arbitration and Neutral Expert. On the contrary, India's boycott of the arbitration proceedings, a treaty mandated mechanism, points towards India's malfeasance. Contrary to upholding international law, India is now engaged in advancing incorrect and misplaced interpretations of well settled legal principles.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
'Not a drop to Pakistan': Jal Shakti min on Indus Waters Treaty suspension
India shuts Indus tap to Pakistan after Pahalgam attack; CR Patil says 'not a drop will cross the border' as govt plots multi-phase water diversion plan New Delhi Union Jal Shakti Minister CR Patil has strongly supported the Centre's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, asserting that India will prevent even a single drop of water from the Indus River from reaching Pakistan. His remarks followed a high-level meeting at the residence of Home Minister Amit Shah on Friday, which was also attended by senior officials. In a post on X, Patil said, "The historic decision taken by the Modi government on the Indus Water Treaty is completely justified and in the national interest. We will ensure that not even a drop of water from the Indus River goes to Pakistan." India's decision to halt its obligations under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty was formally conveyed to Pakistan on Thursday through a letter from the Jal Shakti Ministry to Syed Ali Murtuza, Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Pakistan. The move followed a terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 people lost their lives and many others were injured. In the letter, the ministry said, "The obligation to honour a treaty in good faith is fundamental to a treaty. However, what we have seen instead is sustained cross-border terrorism by Pakistan targeting the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir." Roadmap for treaty's suspension Patil said that a comprehensive strategy was discussed during the meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, aiming to curb the flow of water to Pakistan. He noted that desilting activities would begin soon to facilitate diversion. Speaking to ANI, Patil said, "A roadmap was prepared in the meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Three options were discussed in the meeting. The government is working on short-term, medium-term, and long-term measures so that not even a drop of water goes to Pakistan. Soon, desilting of rivers will be done to stop the water and divert it." India has suspended the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack Union Minister of Jal Shakti, CR Paatil says, "A roadmap was prepared in the meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Three options were discussed in the meeting. The government is… — ANI (@ANI) April 25, 2025 India suspends Indus Waters Treaty India formally suspended the Indus Waters Treaty on April 23, a decision that aligns with the government's assertion that Pakistan should not "receive a single drop of water." The move was triggered by what India described as persistent cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan and targeting Jammu and Kashmir. In a formal communication to Islamabad, the Ministry of Jal Shakti wrote, "The Govt of India has hereby decided that the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect," stated Debashree Mukherjee, Secretary, Ministry of Jal Shakti, in a letter addressed to Syed Ali Murtaza, Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Pakistan. Pakistan has reacted strongly to the move, calling it a provocation. In a statement issued on Thursday, it said, "Any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan as per the Indus Waters Treaty... will be considered as an Act of War and responded with full force across the complete spectrum of National Power." Pahalgam terror attack On April 22, a terrorist attack in the Pahalgam area of Jammu and Kashmir's Anantnag district left 26 people dead and over a dozen others injured. Gunmen targeted a group of tourists at the Baisaran meadow, marking one of the most severe attacks in the region since 2019. The incident has provoked widespread anger across the country and intensified demands for swift and firm government retaliation. India's countermeasures after Pahalgam attack Following the deadly attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, the Indian government implemented a series of strict measures targeting Pakistan. These included the suspension of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, stopping the flow of water across the border, and shutting down the Integrated Check Post (ICP) at Attari, one of the main land crossings between the two nations. Additional steps involved the withdrawal of travel privileges under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme and the cancellation of visas already issued to Pakistani citizens. India also restricted access to Pakistan's official account on X (formerly Twitter) within the country and ordered all Pakistani nationals currently in India to leave within 48 hours. In response, Pakistan criticised the suspension of the treaty, describing it as vital to the water needs of its 240 million people. The country retaliated by cutting off trade ties with India and warned it could suspend the 1971 Simla Agreement, a longstanding cornerstone of bilateral diplomatic engagement.
United News of India
25-04-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
Shah chairs important meeting on Indus Waters Treaty issue
New Delhi, Apr 25 (UNI) Union Home Minister Amit Shah is holding an important meeting with the Union Jal Shakti Ministry on Friday on further action to be taken after India decided to hold in abeyance the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. According to sources, the meeting is being attended by Jal Shakti Minister CR Patil and senior officials of related ministries. The meeting is expected to focus on the subsequent actions and the general framework for executing the decision. India has suspended the 65-year-old Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan following the heinous terrorist attack on tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir on April 22. Notably, India on Thursday night formally informed Pakistan about the decision to hold in abeyance the Indus Waters Treaty with immediate effect, in the aftermath of the Pahalgam massacre of 26 tourists by Pakistan-linked terrorists. The letter sent by Debashree Mukherjee, Secretary of the Jal Shakti Ministry to Syed Ali Murtaza, Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Pakistan, said, 'The obligation to honour a treaty in good faith is fundamental to a treaty. However, what we have seen instead is sustained cross-border terrorism by Pakistan targeting the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir'. 'The resulting security uncertainties have directly impeded India's full utilization of its rights under the Treaty." Furthermore, apart from other breaches committed by it, Pakistan has refused to respond to India's request to enter into negotiations as envisaged under the Treaty and is thus in breach of the Treaty. 'The Government of India has hereby decided that the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect,' the letter reads.
