Pakistan Can't Equate The Indus Waters Treaty With The Shimla Agreement

When Pakistan announced the suspension of all bilateral agreements, including the Shimla Agreement, in response to India's decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) "in abeyance" following the cowardly terror attacks on 26 innocent tourists in Kashmir's Pahalgam region, it made a mistake. Although Pakistan believes it has scored a major victory over India with what experts describe as a "senseless decision", it has failed to grasp the fundamental fact that the two treaties are not inherently linked.

The IWT and the Shimla Agreement are distinct and separate agreements between India and Pakistan. The former, signed in 1960, pertains to the sharing of the waters of the Indus River system.

The Shimla Agreement, signed in 1972, focuses on the normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan after the 1971 war, including the resolution of disputes through peaceful means. The Shimla Agreement should guide Indo-Pak relations despite Pakistan's decision to place the IWT in abeyance, as it provides a framework for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

While Pakistan's move to suspend bilateral agreements, including the Shimla Agreement, is a setback in relations between the two nuclear-armed arch-rivals, Pakistan must realise that the Shimla Agreement remains the foundation for bilateral relations. It calls for both countries to settle their differences through peaceful means, ruling out the use of force or unilateral actions.

The IWT, on the other hand, provides a framework for cooperation and dispute resolution related to water resources. Indus Waters Treaty (1960). This treaty, brokered by the World Bank, divides the waters of the Indus River system between India and Pakistan. It specifies which rivers each country has exclusive use of and establishes procedures for resolving disputes related to water sharing. Both treaties are as different as chalk and cheese.

Water security is increasingly recognised as a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty, as access to sufficient, safe, and reliable water is essential for a nation's stability, economic prosperity, and public health. When a nation can ensure its water resources are protected and managed sustainably, it reduces the risk of social unrest, economic disruptions, and potential conflicts, thereby strengthening its overall national security and sovereignty. It is in this context that India views the IWT as directly linked to its water security needs.

The IWT has a significant impact on India's water security, particularly in relation to the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab). While the treaty grants India limited rights to use these waters for domestic, non-consumptive, and some agricultural purposes, it also restricts the extent of its consumptive use and storage. This treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, states that the waters of the three western rivers - Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab are to be released for Pakistan as per agreeable terms, while the entire volume of water from the three 'eastern rivers' - Baes, Sutlej, and Ravi - is for India.

According to the pact, the waters of the three 'western rivers' - Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab are to be released for Pakistan as per agreeable terms, while the entire volume of water from the three 'eastern rivers' - Baes, Sutlej, and Ravi - is for India. According to the IWT, India is allocated 20% of the total water from the Indus River system, while Pakistan is allocated the remaining 80%.

India's growing population and climate change have put additional strains on its water resources. India had previously sought a review of the IWT with Pakistan and even sent notices to Pakistan to initiate talks on modifying the treaty, citing unsatisfactory responses. But Pakistan remained unresponsive. So, practically, Pakistan can't complain after the suspension of the IWT. However, India may review its decision if Pakistan stops sponsoring terrorism against India.

But the Shimla Accord is a different issue altogether. It outlines the roadmap for bilateral peace through the mutual resolution of any dispute. India's strategic use of bilateral leverage mechanisms, such as the IWT, remains guided by the Shimla Agreement's principle of bilateralism, as it is against the use of conflict as a tool to settle disputes. But Pakistan has never respected any bilateral agreement and has followed the policy of "bleeding India with a thousand cuts" through State-sponsored terrorism, first in Punjab and now in Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan lost half of its territory in the 1971 war due to its own faulty politics and not because of India. Moreover, however much it may dream of dividing India, it will not succeed, as India is a far bigger, stronger, stable, and united country than Pakistan. It is, therefore, prudent for it to follow the tenets of the Shimla Agreement, lest it be fragmented into many other parts.