Indus Waters Treaty: Government focus on Chenab projects, renegotiation
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains in abeyance, with the government continuing hydropower and water-infrastructure works on the Chenab river system
Focus has centred on projects in the Chenab basin, including tunnel-linking and sediment-management works at existing dam sites in Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir
The government's stated position is that any restoration of the Treaty requires renegotiation of its 1960 terms, alongside an end to cross-border terrorism
The Treaty was placed in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025
Indus Waters Treaty, 1960
Signed on 19 September 1960 in Karachi by the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan, with the World Bank as a broker and signatory to facilitate implementation, the IWT is one of the few water-sharing treaties to have survived multiple wars between the two countries until its 2025 abeyance. It allocates and apportions the six-river Indus system between the two countries.
Key Details
- Eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, Sutlej — allocated for India's unrestricted use
- Western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, Chenab — allocated primarily to Pakistan, but India retains rights to limited, non-consumptive uses: run-of-the-river hydropower generation, irrigation of specified areas, navigation, and domestic use, subject to design restrictions in Annexures D and E
- Institutional mechanism: Permanent Indus Commission, with a Commissioner from each country, meant to meet at least once a year to discuss implementation
- Three-tier dispute resolution under Article IX: (i) Permanent Indus Commission for initial examination; (ii) a Neutral Expert for technical "differences" under Annexure F; (iii) a Court of Arbitration for broader, binding "disputes" under Annexure G
The Chenab is a Western river under the Treaty, so any Indian project there is technically bound by the design and operational limits in Annexures D/E; continuing construction while the Treaty is in abeyance is the crux of the current dispute over whether India remains bound by those limits.
Treaty Abeyance and the Government's Renegotiation Position
"Abeyance" is not a term used in the Treaty text itself — the IWT contains no unilateral exit or suspension clause — making India's April 2025 move a novel, contested legal position rather than treaty-sanctioned action.
Key Details
- India's stated conditions for any revival: renegotiation of the 1960 terms, and Pakistan's demonstrable and irreversible end to support for cross-border terrorism
- The Treaty has no exit clause; Article XII(4) allows modification only by a "duly ratified treaty" concluded for that purpose between the two governments — implying renegotiation, not unilateral abeyance, is the Treaty-consistent route
- India has previously sought to invoke a review of the Treaty citing changed circumstances (population growth, clean energy needs, cross-border terrorism) as grounds under general international treaty law principles (rebus sic stantibus, referenced in India's formal notices to Pakistan)
- A Court of Arbitration under the Treaty issued a ruling in 2026 on the "maximum pondage" (reservoir storage capacity) question relevant to India's run-of-the-river hydro projects; India does not recognise the Court's constitution as valid and rejects the award
The government's projects on the Chenab basin, and its explicit demand for renegotiation before restoration, reflect India's position that the 1960 apportionment no longer reflects current water, energy and security needs — while Pakistan continues to rely on the Treaty's original arbitration mechanisms to contest India's actions.
Run-of-the-River Hydropower and Western River Restrictions
India's hydropower projects on the Chenab (e.g., Salal, Baglihar, Ratle) must be "run-of-the-river" — meaning they cannot create large storage reservoirs that would let India control downstream flows into Pakistan — a design constraint unique to the Western rivers under the Treaty.
Key Details
- Annexure D of the Treaty specifies technical parameters for such plants: pondage limits, spillway gate design, and drawdown flushing rules meant to prevent India from using dams for water-control leverage
- Kishenganga and Ratle projects have previously been contested by Pakistan through both a Neutral Expert and a Court of Arbitration in parallel proceedings — a procedural anomaly since the Treaty envisages only one mechanism being active on the same dispute at a time
- Sediment management (flushing) at dams like Salal has been a specific point of technical dispute, since flushing operations affect downstream flow to Pakistan
The sediment-management and tunnel-linking works now underway in the Chenab basin fall squarely within these technical categories that have historically triggered Pakistani objections and treaty arbitration.
- IWT signed: 19 September 1960, Karachi; brokered by the World Bank
- Six rivers of the Indus system: Eastern (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India; Western (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan, with limited Indian usage rights
- Treaty placed in abeyance by India: April 2025, following the Pahalgam terror attack
- Dispute resolution ladder: Permanent Indus Commission to Neutral Expert to Court of Arbitration (Article IX, Annexures F and G)
- Court of Arbitration ruling on maximum pondage: 2026, rejected by India as based on an "illegally constituted" tribunal
- Chenab basin works cited: Chenab-Beas Link Tunnel (Himachal Pradesh) and sediment-management works at Salal Dam (Jammu and Kashmir), together valued at roughly Rs 2,600 crore