India has made it clear that it will not join the proceedings initiated by Pakistan at the Permanent Court of Arbitration on two hydroelectric projects in Kashmir. The arbitration court shall issue a ruling that it is competent to consider and decide on disputes. The Ministry of External Affairs said that the so-called Court of Arbitration, set up illegally, has ruled that it has the competence to deal with matters relating to the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects. India’s consistent and principled position has been that the establishment of the so-called Court of Arbitration is in violation of the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty. India cannot be forced to recognize or participate in illegal and parallel proceedings not included in the treaty.
Indus Waters Treaty
- The Indus Waters Treaty is a water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan.
- The treaty was brokered by the World Bank and signed on September 19, 1960.
- It governs the distribution and utilization of the waters of the Indus River system, which includes six rivers: Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej.
- The treaty aims to promote cooperation and peaceful management of transboundary water resources between India and Pakistan.
Allocation of Rivers
- Under the treaty, three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) are allocated to India for unrestricted use.
- The three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) are allocated to Pakistan for unrestricted use.
- India is allowed limited use of the western rivers for domestic, non-consumptive, and agricultural purposes.
Hydroelectric Project Dispute Between India and Pakistan
Hydroelectric Projects
- The case involves a dispute between India and Pakistan over the Kishenganga hydroelectric project (on the Kishanganga River, a tributary of the Jhelum River), and the Ratle hydroelectric project (on the Chenab River) in Jammu and Kashmir.
- The two countries disagree over whether the technical design features of these two hydroelectric plants contravene the IWT.
Pakistan’s Objections
- Pakistan objects to the hydroelectric projects, citing violations of the IWT, concerns about reduced water flow, environmental impact, and differing treaty interpretations.
- In 2016, Pakistan retracted its request for a Neutral Expert and proposed a CoA instead.
- India requested the appointment of a Neutral Expert in 2016, emphasizing its importance in the process, which Pakistan sought to bypass.
World Bank Intervention
- World Bank paused the process due to separate requests from India and Pakistan, urging resolution through the PIC.
- Pakistan refused to discuss the issue during PIC meetings, leading the World Bank to initiate actions on Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration.
- The Treaty does not empower the World Bank to decide whether one procedure should take precedence over the other.
- The World Bank sought to fulfill its procedural obligations with respect to both the CoA and the Neutral Expert.
India’s Opposition
- India opposes the constitution of the CoA, citing contravention of Indus Waters Treaty provisions.
- India also questioned the jurisdiction and competence of the CoA, stating that it was not properly constituted as per the treaty.
- India has not appointed arbitrators or attended the court’s proceedings, emphasizing the need for a single dispute resolution process.
Ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration
Ruling
- The PCA ruled that the Court of Arbitration (CoA) has the competence to consider Pakistan’s objections to India’s hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir.
- The ruling was based on a unanimous decision, binding on both parties and without any possibility of appeal.
- The PCA rejected India’s objections to the competence of the CoA, as raised through its communications with the World Bank.
India’s Response
- India has been maintaining that it will not join the Pakistan-initiated proceedings at the PCA as the dispute is being already examined by a neutral expert under the framework of the IWT.