Latest news with #Kishanganga
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
India rejects Hague court's ruling on plea filed by Pak
India on Friday rejected a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague that it can continue hearing a case related to Pakistan's objections to Kishenganga and Ratle hydropower projects despite New Delhi's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, and said it has never recognised this court. India rejects Hague court's ruling on plea filed by Pak The Indian side has never participated in the proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration since Pakistan raised objections to certain design elements of the 330-MW Kishanganga and 850-MW Ratle hydropower projects in 2016 under the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty. On Friday, the Court of Arbitration considered the impact of the Indian government's decision of April 23 to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance on its competence to take up the case lodged by Pakistan. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that India's decision 'does not limit' its competence over the dispute and that the ruling 'is binding on the Parties and without appeal'. The external affairs ministry categorically rejected the 'so-called supplemental award' of the Court of Arbitration, just as it 'rejected all prior pronouncements of this body'. The ministry said in a statement that the Court of Arbitration is illegal and was 'purportedly constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty…albeit in brazen violation of it'. A day after the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 that killed 26 civilians, India unveiled a slew of punitive diplomatic and economic measures against Pakistan, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. At the time, foreign secretary Vikram Misri declared the treaty 'will be held in abeyance with immediate effect, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. Prior to suspending the treaty, the Indian side always contended that there is a graded mechanism under the pact for addressing disputes, and that two different approaches can't be simultaneously initiated to tackle differences. While Pakistan sought the appointment of a neutral expert to handle its objections to the Kishenganga and Ratle projects in 2015, it unilaterally retracted this in 2016 and sought a Court of Arbitration. In 2016, the World Bank appointed both a neutral expert and the Court of Arbitration, which wasn't recognised by India. India has attended meetings convened by the neutral expert but stayed away from proceedings of the Court of Arbitration. 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', the external affairs ministry said. Any proceedings in this and 'any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void', the ministry said. The ministry reiterated the reasons for suspending the Indus Waters Treaty after the Pahalgam attack. India exercised its rights as a sovereign nation under international law and placed the treaty in abeyance until Pakistan 'abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. 'Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty,' the ministry said. '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.' The external affairs ministry described the Court of Arbitration's ruling as the 'latest charade at Pakistan's behest', and said this was 'yet another desperate attempt by [Pakistan] 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 ministry said. The Indus Waters Treaty, which was brokered by the World Bank, allocated the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, Chenab – to Pakistan, and the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – to India. It allowed each country certain uses on the rivers allocated to the other. The Kishenganga and Ratle projects are run-of-river hydroelectric projects that India is permitted by the treaty to build on tributaries of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab before the rivers flow into Pakistan. India had also rejected the Court of Arbitration's earlier ruling of July 2023 regarding its competence to hear the dispute over the two hydropower projects. Following India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan's leadership said any diversion of waters allocated to it by the pact would be seen as an 'act of war'. Pakistani ministers also said they planned to challenge India's action at the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice.
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
Hindustan Times
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Charade at Pak's behest': India rejects Hague court ruling on hydro projects
NEW DELHI: India on Friday rejected a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague that it can continue hearing a case related to Pakistan's objections to Kishenganga and Ratle hydropower projects despite New Delhi's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, and said it has never recognised this court. The external affairs ministry said India has 'never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration,'. (HT FILE PHOTO/Waseem Andrabi) The Indian side has never participated in the proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration since Pakistan raised objections to certain design elements of the 330 MW Kishanganga and 850 MW Ratle hydropower projects in 2016 under the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty. On Friday, the Court of Arbitration considered the impact of the Indian government's decision of April 23 to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance on its competence to take up the case lodged by Pakistan. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that India's decision 'does not limit' its competence over the dispute and that the ruling 'is binding on the Parties and without appeal'. The external affairs ministry categorically rejected the 'so-called supplemental award' of the Court of Arbitration, just as it 'rejected all prior pronouncements of this body'. The ministry said in a statement that the Court of Arbitration is illegal and was 'purportedly constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty…albeit in brazen violation of it'. A day after the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 that killed 26 civilians, India unveiled a slew of punitive diplomatic and economic measures against Pakistan, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. At the time, foreign secretary Vikram Misri declared the treaty 'will be held in abeyance with immediate effect, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. Prior to suspending the treaty, the Indian side always contended that there is a graded mechanism under the pact for addressing disputes, and that two different approaches can't be simultaneously initiated to tackle differences. While Pakistan sought the appointment of a neutral expert to handle its objections to the Kishenganga and Ratle projects in 2015, it unilaterally retracted this in 2016 and sought a Court of Arbitration. In 2016, the World Bank appointed both a neutral expert and the Court of Arbitration, which wasn't recognised by India. India has attended meetings convened by the neutral expert but stayed away from the proceedings of the Court of Arbitration. 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', the external affairs ministry said. Any proceedings in this and 'any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void', the ministry said. The ministry reiterated the reasons for suspending the Indus Waters Treaty after the Pahalgam attack. India exercised its rights as a sovereign nation under international law and placed the treaty in abeyance until Pakistan 'abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. 'Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty,' the ministry said. '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.' The external affairs ministry described the Court of Arbitration's ruling as the 'latest charade at Pakistan's behest', and said this was 'yet another desperate attempt by [Pakistan] 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 ministry said. The Indus Waters Treaty, which was brokered by the World Bank, allocated the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, Chenab – to Pakistan, and the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – to India. It allowed each country certain uses on the rivers allocated to the other. The Kishenganga and Ratle projects are run-of-river hydroelectric projects that India is permitted by the treaty to build on tributaries of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab before the rivers flow into Pakistan. India had also rejected the Court of Arbitration's earlier ruling of July 2023 regarding its competence to hear the dispute over the two hydropower projects. Following India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan's leadership said any diversion of waters allocated to it by the pact would be seen as an 'act of war'. Pakistani ministers also said they planned to challenge India's action at the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice.
India Today
11-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
A month into India-Pakistan ceasefire, Uri on LoC declares: ‘Bunkers a necessity now'
Broken walls, shattered windowpanes, damaged rooftops, tattered floor covers, broken utensils, ripped blankets, torn books, hollowed out wardrobes and suitcases—these sum up the scene in shelling-hit Gingal village of Uri in north Kashmir, some 16 km from the Line of Control (LoC) with amidst the ruins of her two-storied home, destroyed in the long-range artillery fire by Pakistan on the night of May 9, 39-year-old Misra Begum is still unable to reconcile with the loss. 'We're homeless now; our valuables of an entire lifetime are gone. My husband is a labourer; how will we build a new one (home)?' says Begum, recounting to INDIA TODAY the family's relentless struggles over the years to put together their over a month now, Begum, her husband and children—13-year-old son and seven-year-old daughter—have been staying at a relative's home nearby. Their devastated home symbolises the carnage caused by long-range shelling in the village of around 750 households between May 8 and 10, when Pakistan responded to India's Operation the vicinity, retired armyman Mohammad Naseer's home has been left with broken windows and holes in the roof. Some 300 metres away, a tw0-storied house has had its left wing, comprising four of the total eight rooms, damaged completely. 'The shelling shook our bodies; it felt like our ears were being torn apart. Had we not gathered in the kitchen, which is on the other side of the house, we would've been dead,' says 38-year-old Zahida Banoo, holding her two children. Her husband works in the Jammu and Kashmir like thousands of others in Uri, had fled her home to safer places when intense shelling by Pakistan wreaked havoc on the villages of Gangil, Lagama, Gharkote, Salamabad, Paranpilla, Bandi, Lagama and Dachi, among others. She returned after spending a week at her sister's home in Baramulla and another at a rented house in which hosts the head office of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), overlooking the 480 MW Uri-I power project on the Jhelum river flowing beneath into Pakistan, was perhaps the worst hit. Some 30-40 artillery shells, as per locals, landed in the village. Four homes were completely damaged and another 87 partially. The highly-guarded NHPC office, spanning over six acres, was also hit by shells—the damages caused to its residential buildings.'Windowpanes broke. There was fear all over; we hid inside bunkers,' informs E. Srinivas, deputy general manager at the NHPC installations near the LoC were put on high alert during the India-Pakistan offensive, owing to a potential threat from Islamabad in the backdrop of New Delhi suspending the Indus Waters Treaty after the terror attack in Pahalgam on April though, says Uri-I, the 240 MW Uri-II and 330 MW Kishanganga projects were fully secured and power generation was Naseer, a 33-year-old woman, shudders at the mention of 'war'. The four-day horror, May 7 to May 10, has left her with nightmares. She blames the media for the war hysteria at the cost of people's lives. 'Take us out of Uri and engage in the war, as much as you can. It looks easy from inside newsrooms; if you've the guts, exchange places with us,' she says, fighting been a month since the post-Operation Sindoor ceasefire with Pakistan, yet the residents of Uri grapple with fear and uncertainty. In recent years, the border villages here have had travellers trooping in, thanks to the tourism push by the government. Now, it has all come to a standstill.'The bullet has no eye to distinguish or differentiate. The deadly shells have damaged our buildings and left us all with lifelong trauma. We have lost sleep,' says Hafiz Zahid Hussain, a Bihar-origin moulvi at Gingal's mosque for the past 32 recall past wars between India and Pakistan, but say the use of long-range artillery this time and the damage it caused is unprecedented. According to an official assessment by the district administration of Baramulla, Uri tehsil suffered damage to 513 buildings—60 homes and five cowsheds were razed to the ground while 436 homes and 12 cowsheds were partially Karnah, in north Kashmir's Kupwara, over 100 buildings were damaged. Overall, in Jammu and Kashmir, Poonch in Jammu suffered the most, with thousands of structures reported to have been damaged. Of the 21 lives lost, 16 were in Poonch conflict has also triggered a bunker crisis in the border areas. Except for a few places like Salamabad and Gharkote, the villages in Uri are largely without bunkers, making them vulnerable to Ali, a resident of Paranpilla village, plans to construct a bunker in his farmland by taking advantage of its terraced design. 'We'll dig through the height of this land from tomorrow and concretise the hole, followed by cementing,' says Ali, sitting in his farmland by a flowing serenity of the surroundings belies the complexity of the situation. 'Bunkers are a necessity now,' decides to India Today Magazine
New Indian Express
30-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Rivers that connect and divide
For over six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has been hailed as a triumph of diplomacy and resilience—surviving wars, terrorism, and deep political hostility between India and Pakistan. Brokered by the World Bank and signed in 1960, the treaty allocated control of the eastern rivers of the Indus system (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan, while permitting limited Indian use of the western rivers for non-consumptive purposes such as hydroelectric generation, navigation and irrigation. The original intent of the treaty was to reduce friction over vital water resources, enabling peaceful coexistence. However, Pakistan was the first to use the treaty less as a means of cooperation, and more as a tool of obstruction and diplomatic warfare. Repeated challenges to India's legitimate hydroelectric projects—such as Kishanganga and Ratle—have been filed at international forums, causing delays, inflating project costs, and undermining India's development agenda, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. Further, Pakistan's simultaneous pursuit of neutral expert intervention and appeals to the Court of Arbitration violated the graded dispute resolution mechanism explicitly outlined in the treaty. Such actions not only breach procedural integrity, but also reveal Islamabad's tactic of leveraging the treaty as a political instrument rather than honoring it as a mechanism for peaceful resolution As the upper riparian, India could have modulated Pakistan's water availability right after 1965 and certainly after the 1971 war, putting economic and political pressure on Islamabad. As a responsible nation taking a humane stance, India did not exercise this option despite the extreme events. However, this stance could not last forever. Based on Pakistan's own patterns of using IWT as a strategic tool, India has increasingly signaled its use of the treaty as a lever to pressure Pakistan to cease cross-border terrorism and other destabilising activities. After the 2016 Uri attack and the 2019 Pulwama attack, the Indian leadership and think tanks discussed re-evaluating the IWT. In January 2023, India issued a notice to Pakistan seeking modification of the treaty under Article XII. Post the inhuman targeting of unarmed civilians at Pahalgam, India's move to suspend the IWT is a logical next step in the country's long-term interest. It is aligned with its broader foreign policy doctrine that demands reciprocity in international arrangements. The precipitate action marks an important shift in India's strategic posture: moving from passive tolerance to active rebalancing. India will move to maximise the use of eastern rivers and expedite hydropower projects on the western rivers as part of a strategy to impose indirect, but significant, strategic costs on Pakistan without crossing into open military conflict. The economic and social consequences would be severe for Pakistan. Over 80 percent of Pakistan's irrigated land depends on waters from the Indus system. The economies of Punjab and Sindh, Pakistan's agricultural heartlands, rely almost entirely on the consistent flow of these rivers for crops like wheat, rice, sugarcane and cotton. Any disruption would likely precipitate acute food insecurity, a sharp decline in agricultural exports such as basmati rice and mangoes, and energy shortages, given that hydropower constitutes 25-30 percent of Pakistan's electricity generation. The stresses would ripple across Pakistan's economy, exacerbating inflation, widening the current account deficit, and fostering social unrest, particularly in already fragile provinces like Sindh and Balochistan. In short, Pakistan's water, food and energy securities are intricately tied to the continued functioning of the IWT, making Islamabad significantly vulnerable. Should India stay the course, Pakistan would undoubtedly mount a vigorous international response. It could appeal to the World Bank, the treaty's guarantor, or invoke international water norms by approaching the International Court of Justice. Islamabad would likely raise the issue in the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council, alleging humanitarian violations, and galvanise diplomatic support from friendly nations such as China and Turkey. A parallel global media campaign could portray India's actions as an aggression against a vulnerable population's right to water. However, while these actions might generate diplomatic noise, they would not easily compel India to reverse course, especially if New Delhi remains within the legal limits of permissible action under the treaty. There is a large scope of actions that India can take to decrease the current water flows, while remaining compliant with the otherwise suspended treaty, India's signaling of potential suspension is not merely an act of retaliation. It reflects a broader assertiveness in India's foreign policy—a willingness to revisit outdated arrangements where strategic asymmetries have grown too wide. While the signal from India is clear, the country will act with a sense of responsibility as a major Asian power that shares other multi-country riparian river systems like the Brahmaputra and the Ganga. India's optimal strategy lies in maximal legal utilisation of its entitlements under the treaty. New Delhi must expedite all permissible run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects, fully use its share of the eastern river waters, build storage structures within treaty limits, and simultaneously engage in proactive diplomacy to frame its actions globally as a rightful rebalancing. The global narrative must be shifted to equity, adaptation to climate realities, and modernisation of a treaty that is outdated, and was misused by Pakistan as strategic leverage. The IWT was a product of its time—an ingenious solution for a newly-partitioned subcontinent facing immense political and humanitarian upheaval. Yet, today's realities—geopolitical, climatic and strategic—demand fresh approaches. India's recent moves, while called aggressive in some quarters, represent a necessary and prudent recalibration driven by imperatives of national security, economic development, and environmental stewardship. Ultimately, the water of the Indus will continue to flow—but whether they will symbolise cooperation or conflict depends on Pakistan's willingness to shed the ghosts of the past, and engage with India in light of the realities of today, for the sake of a better tomorrow. (Views are personal) Davinder Sandhu Co-founder and Chair at Primus Partners; former advisor to World Bank Executive Director for India, and Director, Prime Minister's Office
