The Hindu Editorial Vocabulary– Jan 31, 2022; Day 398

Water woes (Misery resulting from affliction): On negotiations to amend the Indus Waters Treaty

Opening up the entire Indus Water Treaty could come with its own set of challenges

The government’s decision to issue notice to Pakistan, calling for negotiations to amend the Indus Waters Treaty, must be considered carefully. New Delhi says this extreme step is due to Pakistan’s intransigence (stubbornly refusing to compromise) over objections to two Indian hydropower projects in Jammu and Kashmir: the 330MW Kishanganga hydroelectric project (Jhelum) and the 850MW Ratle hydroelectric project (Chenab). India has argued since 2006, when the objections began, that the projects were within the treaty’s fair water use. However, Pakistan has refused to conclude negotiations with India in the bilateral mechanism — the Permanent Indus Commission of experts that meets regularly — and has often sought to escalate it. As a result, the World Bank appointed a neutral expert, but Pakistan pushed for the case to be heard at The Hague. India has objected to this sequencing (the process of combining things in a particular order), as it believes that each step should be fully exhausted (Use (resources or materials) over time in order to function) before moving on to the next. While India was able to prevail over the World Bank to pause the process in 2016, Pakistan persisted (refuse to stop), and since March 2022, the World Bank has agreed to have both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration (CoA) hear the arguments. India attended the hearings with the neutral expert last year, but has decided to boycott (refuse to do business with) the CoA at The Hague that began its hearing on Friday. New Delhi says as talks have hit a dead-end (A situation in which no progress can be made or no advancement is possible), it wants the entire treaty to be opened up for amendments and renegotiations. India’s accusations against Pakistan may be valid, given that Islamabad has failed to provide material evidence of the two projects hampering (Prevent the progress or free movement of) its water supply. The World Bank’s decision to hold two parallel adjudication (the act of pronouncing judgment based on the evidence presented) processes is also perilous (Fraught with danger) as there could be contradictory rulings. However, opening up the treaty for review has its own problems that India must deliberate (Think about carefully; weigh) on with a cool mind.

To begin with, the Indus Waters Treaty that decided the distribution of the six tributaries of the Indus or Sindhu between the two nations took nearly a decade to negotiate originally before its signing in 1960. Built in were mechanisms for coordination and dispute resolution that have held the treaty in good stead (to be useful or helpful to someone or something) for at least half a century, and it has often been used as a template between upper riparian (Of or relating to or located on the banks of a river or stream) and lower riparian states worldwide. That it has endured despite conflict and political rhetoric (Using language effectively to please or persuade) between India and Pakistan is a testament (Strong evidence for something) to its text. In addition, if India and Pakistan have not been able to resolve issues over one case in their Indus Commission talks over 16 years, what guarantees are there that they can renegotiate the whole treaty within any reasonable time-frame? At a time when there is no political dialogue, trade and air or rail connectivity between them, reopening negotiations could open a new flank (The side of a military or naval formation) for India-Pakistan confrontation.

Want to improve your vocabulary further? Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.