Kashmir’s Water War: Local Leaders Clash Over Indus Treaty’s Future

The 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) grants India control over the waters of the three “Eastern Rivers”—the Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej—while allocating the waters of the three Western Rivers, the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, to Pakistan. The treaty permits India to use the water of the Western Rivers for limited irrigation and unlimited non-consumptive uses such as power generation, navigation, property floating, fish culture, and so forth. 

The preamble of the treaty acknowledges the rights and obligations of each country regarding optimal water use from the Indus system of rivers in a spirit of goodwill, friendship, and cooperation. Although the treaty is not directly related to national security, Pakistan, positioned downstream of India, has lived with the persistent fear that India could potentially harm Pakistan. Consequently, it has an interest in raising riverine issues, whether justified or not, to maintain international attention on its concerns.

Disputes and Mechanism for Dispute Resolution

The IWT faces several contentious issues, including hydropower projects, dispute resolution procedures, and the interpretation of treaty provisions. These disputes arise from differing understandings of the treaty’s terms, particularly regarding India’s construction of hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, which Pakistan fears may impact water flow.

India’s construction of the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects on the Kishen Ganga River (a tributary of the Jhelum) and Chenab rivers, respectively, has become a significant point of contention for Pakistan, which claims they violate the IWT by altering the rivers’ natural flow and potentially affecting water supply. Pakistan has also expressed concerns regarding the technical design of these projects, arguing that they grant India excessive control over river flow, which is prohibited under the treaty. Conversely, India maintains that the projects are in accordance with the treaty’s provisions.

Pakistan has sought to resolve these disputes through the PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration), whereas India has insisted on using the Neutral Expert (NE) mechanism, which is part of the IWT. The World Bank initiated both processes; however, India boycotted the PCA, arguing that it is not the appropriate body for settling disputes under the IWT.

There are ongoing disagreements regarding the interpretation and implementation of the treaty, particularly concerning the construction of hydropower projects on the western rivers. India has not fully utilised its share of water under the treaty, resulting in excess water flowing into Pakistan, and has, therefore, initiated projects to divert water for its use. 

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) dispute resolution mechanism consists of a three-tiered system: the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), a Neutral Expert appointed by the World Bank, and a Court of Arbitration. The PIC examines any questions regarding the interpretation or application of the treaty. If the PIC cannot resolve the issue, it can be referred to a Neutral Expert; if that also fails, the dispute may be taken to a Court of Arbitration.

IWT held in Abeyance

On 23 April 2025, India announced that it was putting the IWT in abeyance, following a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack on 22 April 2025 in Pahalgam, Kashmir, in which 25 Indian and one Nepali tourist were gunned down. The suspension was prompted by concerns for national security, with India citing Pakistan’s proven support for cross-border terrorism as the reason.

Pakistan has denied its involvement in the export of terrorism to India and has warned that any attempts by India to disrupt the flow of water from shared rivers would be considered an act of war. Pakistan is exploring various legal options, including raising the issue at the World Bank, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or the International Court of Justice, according to the Hindu of May 1, 2025. However, the World Bank has stated that it would not intervene in the dispute as its role in the treaty was limited to that of a ‘facilitator’.

Gupkar Gang clash over IWT

The National Conference (NC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the two primary components of the Gupkar Alliance, have long been engaged in a tango to oppose the 2019 Reorganisation Act in J&K jointly. They have now come to an open clash over the Union Government’s decision to place the IWT in abeyance.

The India Today of 8 May wrote, “The political temperature in Jammu and Kashmir soared on Friday as Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and People’s Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti locked horns over the revival of the long-stalled Tulbul Navigation Barrage on Wular Lake in view of the Centre’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan”. Omar Abdullah strongly urges revival of the water barrage given the suspension of the Indus Treaty but Mehbooba Mufti, chairperson of the PDP, considers Omar’s move “dangerously provocative”. 

In a post on X, Omar Abdullah re-ignited the Tulbul project debate, asking if the temporary suspension of the IWT clears the way to resume work on the Wular Lake barrage in Northern Kashmir. It was started in the early 1980s but had to be abandoned under pressure from Pakistan, citing the Indus Water Treaty. Now that the IWT has been ‘temporarily suspended’, I wonder if we shall resume the project,” he wrote.

Omar Abdullah, who has consistently opposed the IWT, argued that completing the barrage would bring multiple benefits. “It will give us the advantage of using the Jhelum for navigation as envisaged in the Tulbul project. It will also improve the power generation of downstream projects, especially in winter.” However, PDP Chairperson Mehbooba Mufti, the former Chief Minister, called the suggestion “deeply unfortunate” and “dangerously provocative”.

The former chief minister also warned against “weaponising water” amid high regional tensions. “At a time when both countries have just stepped back from the brink of a full-fledged war, with J&K bearing the brunt through the loss of innocent lives, widespread destruction and immense suffering, such statements are not only irresponsible but also dangerously provocative,” she said.

Ms Mufti’s statement is peculiar. None of the 26 victims of the 22 April massacre were Kashmiri. In any case, it was Pakistan that weaponised the conflict over the last 36 years through its sponsorship and abetment of terrorism in J&K, which has claimed thousands of lives, in addition to the genocide and religious cleansing of the minority Hindu community. Her contention that holding the IWT in abeyance would internationalise the Kashmir issue is again invalid. It was her party delegates who have internationalised the issue during their visits to Geneva, London, Washington, and various other European and West Asian capitals.

When a political leader opposes policies and decisions of the people’s government that serve the interests of the masses, they lose popularity and political legitimacy. Local voters will determine whether such a leader is supportive or letting them down. This was evident from the results of the parliamentary and assembly elections held earlier this year.

This is what the J&K chief minister’s counterargument conveys: “Actually what is unfortunate is that with your blind lust to try to score cheap publicity points and please some people sitting across the border, you refuse to acknowledge that the IWT has been one of the biggest historic betrayals of the interests of the people of J&K,” he said. “Opposing a blatantly unfair treaty is in no way, shape, size or form warmongering. It’s about correcting a historic injustice that denied the people of J&K the right to use our water for ourselves,” he added.