The killing of 26 tourists by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam has caused a shift in India’s long-standing policy of keeping its water-sharing agreement with Pakistan independent from conflicts. 

However, on April 23, the government took a momentous step and decided to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. It said that “sustained cross-border terrorism by Pakistan” has targeted Jammu and Kashmir and the uncertainty caused by terror attacks has impeded India’s full utilisation of its rights under the treaty.  

⁠Meanwhile, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s office has said that that stopping or diverting the flow of water in violation of the treaty would be “an Act of War”. 

The diplomatic fallout between the two nations has brought a 65-year-old treaty to limelight. Here is a summary of what the treaty is and what makes it so important. 

What is the Indus Waters Treaty? 

The IWT is a World Bank-brokered water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan. It was signed in 1960 by the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Pakistani President General Ayub Khan and Sir William Iliff of the World Bank. 

The agreement governs how the waters of the six rivers under the Indus River system – Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – are to be shared between the two countries. It gives India 20% of the water and the rest 80% to Pakistan.

While India has exclusive rights to the waters of the three eastern rivers, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej, Pakistan is entitled to the waters of the western rivers, Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. However, under certain conditions, India can use these western rivers for “non-consumptive” purposes like irrigation, hydropower, and navigation. 

The treaty has 12 articles and eight annexures. 

How crucial is the treaty for Pakistan? 

The IWT is essential for Pakistan because almost 80% of its cultivated land is dependent on the waters from the Indus River system. Agriculture makes up a quarter of Pakistan’s economy, employs half of its labour force and is the largest source of foreign exchange earnings. 

Moreover, major cities like Lahore, Karachi and Multan also rely on the water from the Indus system, and the survival of the country’s several hydropower projects also depends on these rivers. 

In fact in 1961, Iliff, the then Vice President of the World Bank, had said that if Pakistan is deprived of its canal water from the Indus system, the whole country would become a desert. 

How soon can India turn the tap shut on the Indus water? 

Stopping the flow of the three rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab requires significant infrastructure which India does not have yet. Building dams and reservoirs will take years. 

A report in The Print said that that though India has utilised 95% of its share of water in easter rivers, it doesn’t yet have the infrastructure in place to harness the western rivers. 

“Currently, work is in various stages of implementation in four hydropower plants—850 MW Ratle, 1,000 MW Pakadul, 624 MW Kiru and 540 MW Kwar—on the Chenab to harness the water for electricity,” the report said. 

What is the mechanism to deal with disputes between two countries? 

The treaty has an in-built, multi-layered framework for conflict resolution, both bilaterally and through international arbitration. 

In case of any ‘question’ arising between the two sides, they are firstly addressed by the Indus Waters Commission, a permanent body constituted under Article VIII of the treaty. It consists of one commissioner from India and one from Pakistan. 

If the two sides cannot resolve the ‘question’ bilaterally, it becomes a ‘difference’. If these differences fall within Part I of Annexure F, they can be referred by either of the two commissioners to the neutral expert appointed by the World Bank. The appointment and functioning of the neutral expert is governed by Part II of Annexure F. 

If the differences do not fall within the said provisions or if the neutral expert believes the difference should be treated as a ‘dispute’, then it can be referred to a Court of Arbitration. 

As per Annexure G, the Court of Arbitration consists of seven members, two each from India and Pakistan. The three other arbitrators are referred to as umpires. The treaty says India and Pakistan “shall endeavour” to agree on these umpires. However, if they fail to do so in 30 days, they are chosen by drawing lots. 

What next? 

The IWT does not provide any mechanism for a party to withdraw from the agreement. It does not contain any exit clause. Article IX of the treaty, titled “Settlement of Disputes and Differences”, merely deals with the disputes arising between the two sides concerning its interpretation and application. 

Interestingly, the Indian government has not said that it is withdrawing from the treaty; it has merely kept it in abeyance, posing an interesting and complex legal question, which will be dealt with in the coming days. 

The result of the legal challenge will decide the fate of the 65-year-old treaty, which has often been described as one of the most successful international agreements. It has survived three wars and decades of strained relations between India and Pakistan. However, it now hangs in the balance. 

[Read Indus Waters Treaty]

[Read GoI order keeping IWT in abeyance]

Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi has approached the Supreme Court challenging an Allahabad High Court order which had refused to quash the summons issued to him by a Magistrate court for making remarks against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

The matter is slated to be heard by a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan of the top court today.

Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had declined to entertain the plea prompting Gandhi to move the top court.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of High Court refused to entertain Gandhi's plea after observing that Gandhi has the option to approach the Sessions Judge with a plea under Section 397 (review records of lower court) of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of moving the High Court.

The summons order was passed by a Lucknow Magistrate court on December 12, 2024.

Gandhi is facing charges under Sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 505 (public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after advocate Nripendra Pandey filed a complaint against him.

Pandey had initially approached an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) with an application to register a first information report (FIR) against Gandhi for his remarks on Savarkar.

Pandey raised grievance over remarks made by Rahul Gandhi on November 17, 2022 during his Bharat Jodo Yatra when he referred to Savarkar as a collaborator with the British and further stated that Sarvarkar received pension from the British.

Pandey asserted that these remarks were made with the intent of inciting hatred in society.

The complaint by Pandey also asserted that Mahatma Gandhi had previously recognized Savarkar as a patriot.

In June 2023, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambrish Kumar Srivastava dismissed Pandey's complaint prompting Pandey to challenge the same before the sessions court.

The sessions court then allowed the plea and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate court which then issued summons to Gandhi.

In the order, the Magistrate court observed that Gandhi had said that Savarkar was a British servant who received a pension.

These remarks had spread hatred and ill-will in society, the trial court observed.

Therefore, the trial court found a prima facie case against Gandhi and directed him to appear before it.

Subsequently, Gandhi approached the High Court challenging the summoning order which also came to be rejected leading to the present appeal before the apex court.

Recently, the trial court also imposed costs of ₹200 on Gandhi for non-appearance in the case.