Indus Waters Treaty, 1960

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is an agreement between India and Pakistan on how to share the water of the Indus river system. It divides six rivers into two groups. India got full use of the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej). Pakistan got most of the use of the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab), while India can use them in limited ways. The World Bank helped the two countries reach this deal.

Why was a treaty needed?

The Indus rivers start in India or Tibet and flow through Indian territory before entering Pakistan. When India was partitioned in 1947, the rivers were split between two countries, but the canals were not. Many canal headworks (the starting points of canals) stayed in India, while the farms they fed were in Pakistan. In 1948, India briefly stopped water to some Pakistani canals, which showed how risky the situation was. Both countries needed a fixed rule so that farmers on both sides could plan.

How did the treaty come about?

In 1951, David Lilienthal, a former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the USA, suggested that the World Bank help solve the problem. The World Bank (then called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, or IBRD) led talks for about nine years. The treaty was signed in Karachi on 19 September 1960 by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India, President Mohammad Ayub Khan of Pakistan, and W.A.B. Iliff of the World Bank. The World Bank signed too, but only for certain specific roles, not as a guarantor of the whole treaty.

How is the water divided?

• Eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej): India can use all their water without restriction. Together they carry about 33 million acre-feet (MAF) a year.
• Western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab): India must "let flow" their water to Pakistan. They carry about 135 MAF a year.
• So India got about 20% of the system's water and Pakistan about 80%.

An acre-foot is the water needed to cover one acre of land one foot deep. A "million acre-feet" is a huge amount, the kind used to measure whole rivers.

What can India do on the western rivers?

"Let flow" does not mean India can use nothing. The treaty allows India some uses, with strict limits written in its annexures (attached schedules):

• Domestic and non-consumptive uses: Drinking water, navigation, fishing and fish farming. A non-consumptive use means the water is used but returned to the river, almost fully, like water passing through a turbine.
• Agriculture (Annexure C): India can irrigate a limited area. The total "irrigated cropped area" allowed is 13,43,477 acres, which includes land already irrigated before 1960.
• Hydropower (Annexure D): India can build run-of-the-river power plants, with strict design rules (explained in the next bridge).
• Storage (Annexure E): India can store up to 3.6 MAF in total on the western rivers: 1.25 MAF for general storage (such as irrigation), 1.6 MAF for power storage, and 0.75 MAF for flood storage.

How does the treaty work day to day?

Article VIII created the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC). Each country appoints one Indus Commissioner, usually a water engineer. The Commission must meet at least once a year, alternately in India and Pakistan. It shares data on river flows and water use, makes tours of inspection, and gives an annual report. India must also share details of new projects on the western rivers in advance, so that Pakistan can raise objections.

What if the two sides disagree? (Article IX)

The treaty sets up a three-step ladder:

1. A "question": First discussed in the Permanent Indus Commission.
2. A "difference": If it is a technical matter, it goes to a Neutral Expert, an engineer appointed under the treaty (with a role for the World Bank in the appointment).
3. A "dispute": If it is a larger legal matter, it goes to a Court of Arbitration, a seven-member panel.

Think of it like a school: a small problem is sorted out by the class monitor, a technical one by a subject teacher, and a serious one by the principal.

Important cases under the treaty

• Baglihar (Chenab): Pakistan objected to its design. A Neutral Expert, Swiss engineer Raymond Lafitte, gave his decision on 12 February 2007. He mostly allowed the project, but asked India to reduce pondage by 13.5%, lower the dam height by 1.5 metres and raise the power intake tunnels by 3 metres.
• Kishanganga (Jhelum basin): A Court of Arbitration gave its final award on 20 December 2013. It upheld India's right to divert water for power, but said India must always release a minimum flow of 9 cumecs (cubic metres per second) downstream.
• Kishanganga and Ratle together: In 2016, Pakistan asked for a Court of Arbitration, while India asked for a Neutral Expert. The World Bank started both processes in 2022. India refused to take part in the Court of Arbitration, saying two parallel processes on the same issue break the treaty's step-by-step ladder. In January 2025, the Neutral Expert, Michel Lino, said he had the power to decide the technical differences, a position India welcomed.

Recent changes in India's approach

On 25 January 2023, India sent Pakistan a notice under Article XII(3) asking to modify the treaty, and in 2024 it sent another notice seeking a review. India's reasons included population growth, the need for clean energy, and Pakistan's repeated objections that slowed Indian projects. On 23 April 2025, after the Pahalgam terror attack, India declared the treaty "in abeyance", and formally informed Pakistan on 24 April 2025.

India has since stopped sharing river data with Pakistan and has flushed silt out of the Baglihar and Salal reservoirs, which the treaty earlier restricted.

The Court of Arbitration's view

The Court of Arbitration, which India does not recognise, has continued its work:

• 27 June 2025: It said India's "abeyance" decision did not take away its power to hear the case.
• 8 August 2025: It said India must "let flow" the western rivers and that design rules for run-of-the-river plants must be followed strictly.
• 31 August 2026: It said none of India's grounds could suspend the treaty, so the treaty "remains fully in force".

India rejected each award, calling the court "illegally constituted".

India's position

As of October 2026, India's stated position is that the treaty stays in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and permanently gives up support for cross-border terrorism. The treaty has no exit clause. Article XII says it can be changed or ended only by a new treaty that both governments ratify: Article XII(3) allows changes only through such a treaty, and Article XII(4) says the treaty stays in force until a treaty made for that purpose ends it.

India also points to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties idea of a "fundamental change of circumstances" as a reason to revisit an old treaty. (India has not ratified the Vienna Convention, but many of its rules are treated as general international law.)

Commonly confused concepts

• Indus Waters Treaty vs Ganga Water Treaty: The IWT (1960) is with Pakistan, has no expiry date, and divides whole rivers. The Ganga Water Treaty (1996) is with Bangladesh, ran for 30 years, and shares the dry-season flow at Farakka.
• Eastern vs western rivers: Eastern = Ravi, Beas, Sutlej (India). Western = Indus, Jhelum, Chenab (mostly Pakistan). A common trick: the Chenab and Jhelum flow through J&K, yet they are "western" rivers.
• Neutral Expert vs Court of Arbitration: The Neutral Expert handles technical "differences". The Court of Arbitration handles legal "disputes".
• "Abeyance" vs "termination": Abeyance means the treaty is put on hold. Termination means it ends completely. India has used the word abeyance.

Issues, criticism and the way forward

• India's view: Many Indian experts say the treaty was too generous, since India kept only about 20% of the water. Pakistan's objections have delayed Indian projects for decades, and the treaty does not account for climate change or clean-energy needs.
• Pakistan's view: Pakistan's farming depends heavily on the Indus system. It sees Indian dams and the abeyance as a threat to its water security, and it has taken the matter to international forums.
• Climate change: Glaciers in the Himalaya and Karakoram are melting. This will change how much water the rivers carry and when, which the 1960 text never planned for.
• India's own use: India has not used its full rights even on the western rivers. Only about 7.9 lakh acres of the 13.4 lakh acres of allowed irrigation is used. Faster work on storage and canals is often suggested.
• Way forward: Experts suggest renegotiating the treaty to cover climate change, data sharing and modern engineering. India also needs to finish its western-river projects quickly, while keeping their environmental impact low.

Concepts to Know

• Abeyance: A state of being temporarily set aside. A treaty in abeyance is not cancelled, but one side stops following it for now.
• Arbitration: A way to settle a quarrel where both sides go to a neutral panel instead of a regular court.
• Ratify: When a country formally approves a treaty it has signed, so it becomes binding on it.
• Cumec: Short for cubic metre per second. It measures how much water flows past a point every second.
• Headworks: The structure at the start of a canal that controls how much river water enters it.