'One-sided and outdated. China, Turkey never signed such pact': Ex-UN envoy urges India to junk Indus Waters Treaty

Former Indian diplomat and ex-Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Dilip Sinha, has made a strong case for abrogating the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), calling it an outdated, unfair agreement that handed over a disproportionately large share of water to Pakistan — and did so under external pressure. He argued that India gave away far more than any upper riparian ever has, while countries like China and Turkey don’t even sign such treaties with their downstream neighbours.

“Pakistan defends the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) ferociously, and for good reason. It had exploited its alliance with the US to the hilt to get India to sign it,” Sinha wrote in an opinon piece in The Indian Express.

He noted that while the IWT is often praised globally as a model water-sharing pact, “the IWT was not about sharing river waters — it was about partitioning the rivers of northwestern India, giving Pakistan near-full rights to the waters of the three rivers in Jammu and Kashmir.”

Under the treaty, signed in 1960 with World Bank mediation, Pakistan received control over the three western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — which account for 80% of the water flow in the Indus basin. India was left with the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — and limited rights on the western ones, primarily for hydroelectricity and agriculture, without significant storage.

"It's difficult to find any other example of an upper riparian giving the kind of rights India has,” Sinha said. In contrast, "Pakistan’s friend, Turkey, refuses to enter into an agreement with Syria and Iraq...China too has no agreements with downstream countries in South and Southeast Asia on sharing the waters of Tibet’s rivers."

He criticised the lack of an exit clause or expiry provision in the treaty, calling it its "most unreasonable provision." While Canada and the US have a permanent Columbia River Treaty, either party can withdraw with 10 years' notice. Even the Vienna Convention allows for treaty termination in case of major geopolitical shifts, Sinha pointed out.

Despite receiving a windfall under the IWT, Sinha said Pakistan has consistently acted in bad faith, objecting to every Indian hydroelectric project in Jammu and Kashmir — from the Salal project in the 1970s to Tulbul, Baglihar, Kishanganga, and Ratle in later decades. India had to compromise or face international arbitration each time, often under unfavourable terms.

"Pakistan was not interested in cooperation. What mattered to it was preventing India from exercising its limited rights to the J&K rivers,” he stated.

Sinha added that India has now declared that it will keep the treaty in abeyance, but warned this is only a temporary measure. "It will have to remove any construction it does in this period when the treaty is reactivated if found to be in violation."

"The real issue is the unfairly high share of the water to Pakistan, which can only be corrected by a full-scale revision of the treaty. Pakistan's reaction will be equally hostile to both steps. India may as well strengthen its hand by abrogating the treaty," he concluded.