The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960, while largely successful in managing water-sharing between India and Pakistan, has faced several disputes, primarily due to differing interpretations of the treaty’s provisions, India’s hydropower projects on the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab), and geopolitical tensions. Below is a detailed overview of the key disputes, their nature, resolution mechanisms, and current status:

 1. Nature of Disputes

Disputes under the IWT typically arise over:

- India’s Hydropower Projects: Pakistan objects to India’s construction of run-of-the-river dams or storage projects on Western Rivers, citing potential impacts on water flow or violations of treaty design restrictions.

- Design and Technical Specifications: Pakistan often challenges the technical aspects of India’s projects (e.g., storage capacity, spillway design, or pondage), claiming they exceed treaty limits or could be used to manipulate flows.

- Information Sharing: Pakistan accuses India of delays or inadequate sharing of project details, which the treaty mandates for transparency.

- Water Flow Concerns: Pakistan, being downstream, fears that India’s projects could reduce or control water availability, especially during low-flow seasons or in times of conflict.

- Geopolitical Tensions: Bilateral hostility (e.g., after terror attacks or military standoffs) amplifies disputes, with water issues becoming politicized.

 2. Key Disputes

Here are the most significant disputes under the IWT, with details on their causes, proceedings, and outcomes:

 a. Salal Hydropower Project (1970s)

- Issue: Pakistan objected to India’s Salal Dam on the Chenab River, citing concerns over storage capacity and potential flow reduction.

- Resolution: Resolved through bilateral negotiations in 1978. India agreed to modify the project’s design (e.g., reducing the height of gates) to address Pakistan’s concerns. The project was completed, and this dispute is considered a successful example of treaty compliance.

 b. Baglihar Hydropower Project (1999–2007)

- Issue: Pakistan raised objections to the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River, arguing that its design (e.g., gated spillways, pondage capacity) violated the treaty by allowing India to control water flow. Pakistan feared India could store or release water strategically.

- Process:

  - The Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) failed to resolve the issue.

  - Pakistan invoked the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism, and in 2005, the World Bank appointed a Neutral Expert, Raymond Lafitte (Swiss engineer), to adjudicate.

- Outcome:

  - In 2007, Lafitte upheld most of India’s design but mandated minor modifications (e.g., reducing pondage capacity and spillway gate height).

  - The ruling clarified technical aspects of run-of-the-river projects, setting a precedent for future disputes.

- Significance: This was the first time a Neutral Expert was involved, highlighting the treaty’s robust dispute resolution framework.

 c. Kishanganga Hydropower Project (2008–2013)

- Issue: Pakistan objected to India’s 330 MW Kishanganga Project on the Jhelum River’s tributary, claiming it violated the treaty by diverting water from the Neelum River (called Kishanganga in India), affecting Pakistan’s planned Neelum-Jhelum Project.

  - Pakistan also challenged the project’s design, particularly the inter-tributary diversion and drawdown flushing (sediment management technique).

- Process:

  - Bilateral talks and PIC discussions failed.

  - In 2010, Pakistan escalated the matter to a Court of Arbitration (CoA), the highest dispute resolution level under the IWT, chaired by the International Court of Arbitration.

- Outcome:

  - In 2013, the CoA delivered a partial award, allowing India to proceed with the Kishanganga Project but with conditions:

    - India could divert water but had to maintain a minimum environmental flow of 9 cumecs (cubic meters per second) downstream to protect Pakistan’s water rights.

    - Drawdown flushing was banned, as it violated treaty provisions on storage.

  - The final award later clarified technical details, balancing both countries’ interests.

- Significance:

  - The ruling upheld India’s right to build run-of-the-river projects but set limits on water diversion and sediment management.

  - It reinforced the treaty’s adaptability to modern hydropower needs while protecting downstream rights.

 d. Ratle and Other Projects (2016–Ongoing)

- Issue:

  - Pakistan objected to India’s 850 MW Ratle Project and other projects (e.g., Miyar, Lower Kalnai) on the Chenab River, alleging excessive storage capacity and non-compliance with treaty design criteria.

  - Pakistan claimed these projects could collectively reduce water flows, threatening its agriculture and hydropower plans.

- Process:

  - Discussions through the PIC stalled, with Pakistan raising concerns repeatedly since 2016.

  - In 2016, Pakistan requested a Neutral Expert, while India preferred bilateral resolution or a Court of Arbitration.

  - The World Bank, under pressure from both sides, faced challenges in appointing a single mechanism, as the treaty does not allow simultaneous Neutral Expert and CoA processes.

  - In 2022–2023, the World Bank urged both countries to pause parallel proceedings and seek cooperative solutions, but no consensus was reached.

- Current Status (as of April 2025):

  - The Ratle dispute remains unresolved, with Pakistan pushing for arbitration and India insisting on compliance with treaty terms.

  - Tensions escalated after India’s 2016 statement (post-Uri attack) about “reviewing” the IWT and maximizing its use of Western Rivers, though no formal abrogation occurred.

  - The World Bank continues to mediate, but progress is slow due to geopolitical mistrust.

 e. Tulbul Navigation Project/Wullar Barrage (1980s–Ongoing)

- Issue:

  - India’s Tulbul Project on the Jhelum River (near Wullar Lake) aims to regulate water for navigation and irrigation. Pakistan views it as a storage project, arguing it violates the IWT’s restrictions on Western Rivers.

- Process:

  - The dispute emerged in the 1980s, leading India to suspend construction in 1987 after Pakistan’s objections.

  - Bilateral talks have occurred intermittently, but no resolution has been reached.

- Current Status:

  - The project remains stalled, with periodic discussions in the PIC but no progress.

  - It is a less active dispute compared to hydropower projects but remains a point of contention.

 3. Dispute Resolution Mechanism

The IWT provides a three-tiered process for resolving disputes:

1. Permanent Indus Commission (PIC):

   - Comprises one commissioner from each country.

   - Meets regularly to discuss issues, share data, and resolve minor disputes.

   - Most disputes are addressed here, but complex issues escalate.

2. Neutral Expert:

   - Appointed by the World Bank for technical disputes (e.g., project design).

   - Binding recommendations, as seen in the Baglihar case.

3. Court of Arbitration (CoA):

   - For significant legal or treaty interpretation disputes.

   - Comprises seven members (including neutral international judges).

   - Used in the Kishanganga case; binding rulings.

Challenges:

- The treaty does not allow simultaneous Neutral Expert and CoA proceedings, causing delays when both are requested (e.g., Ratle dispute).

- Geopolitical tensions often politicize technical disputes, slowing resolution.

 4. Broader Context and Challenges

- Geopolitical Tensions:

  - Disputes often intensify after India-Pakistan conflicts (e.g., 2001 Parliament attack, 2016 Uri attack, 2019 Pulwama attack).

  - In 2016, Indian PM Narendra Modi’s remark that “blood and water cannot flow together” raised fears of treaty abrogation, though no formal action followed.

- Pakistan’s Concerns:

  - As the lower riparian state, Pakistan is highly dependent on Western Rivers for agriculture (e.g., Punjab’s canal system) and fears India could use dams to control flows during war or drought.

  - Climate change and reduced river flows exacerbate these concerns.

- India’s Perspective:

  - India argues its projects are treaty-compliant and essential for power generation in Jammu and Kashmir.

  - India perceives Pakistan’s objections as delaying tactics to hinder development.

- Public and Political Pressure:

  - In India, calls to scrap the treaty arise during tensions, citing Pakistan’s alleged support for terrorism.

  - In Pakistan, water scarcity fuels public distrust of India’s intentions, with media amplifying fears of “water wars.”

- Climate Change:

  - Reduced glacial melt and erratic monsoons strain water availability, making both countries more sensitive to perceived violations.

  - The treaty lacks provisions for climate-related challenges, complicating disputes.

 5. Current Status and Outlook (April 2025)

- Ongoing Disputes: The Ratle and related hydropower projects remain the primary focus, with no resolution in sight. The Tulbul Project is dormant but unresolved.

- World Bank Role: The Bank continues to mediate but faces challenges due to procedural disagreements (Neutral Expert vs. CoA).

- Bilateral Efforts: PIC meetings occur, but progress is limited by mistrust. Both countries exchange data, though Pakistan alleges delays.

- Geopolitical Climate: India-Pakistan relations remain strained, with water disputes entangled in broader issues like Kashmir and cross-border terrorism.

- Emerging Issues:

  - Climate change and population growth increase pressure on Indus waters, potentially sparking new disputes.

  - Pakistan seeks amendments to address modern challenges, while India resists changes, citing the treaty’s success.

 6. Sources for Further Reading

- Primary Documents: The full IWT text is available on the World Bank’s website or India’s Ministry of Jal Shakti website.

- World Bank Archives: Provide details on dispute proceedings (e.g., Baglihar, Kishanganga).

- News and Analysis: Recent posts on X and web sources (e.g., Dawn, The Hindu, ORF) discuss ongoing disputes, though they may reflect national biases.

- Academic Studies: Books like Indus Divided by Daniel Haines or reports by the Stimson Center offer in-depth analysis.