India Rejects ‘Supplemental Award’ on Kishenganga, Ratle Projects

Relevance

 GS Paper 2: International Relations

Background: Indus Waters Treaty (1960)

  • Signed between: India and Pakistan
  • Mediated by: World Bank
  • Purpose: Distribution of Indus basin rivers after Partition
  • Key Provisions:
    • India gets full rights over Eastern Rivers: Ravi, Beas, Sutlej
    • Pakistan gets full rights over Western Rivers: Indus, Jhelum, Chenab
    • India allowed non-consumptive use of Western rivers (e.g., hydroelectricity without altering flow)

 About the Projects:

  • Kishenganga (330 MW) and Ratle (850 MW):
    • Both are run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects in Jammu & Kashmir.
    • Do not store large quantities of water; conform to non-consumptive usage.
  • Pakistan’s Objections:
    • Raised concerns about spillway design, pondage capacity, and potential impact on water flow.
    • Alleged these violate the IWT by giving India control over timing and volume of water flow.

Dispute Escalation

  • Talks continued till 2015, but no resolution.
  • In 2016, Pakistan unilaterally approached the World Bank, demanding the creation of a Court of Arbitration (CoA).
  • India’s Objection:
    • Cited Article IX of the IWT: Legal (arbitration) and technical (Neutral Expert) processes cannot proceed simultaneously.
    • India requested resolution through a Neutral Expert, a mechanism already available in the treaty.

India’s Rejection of the Supplemental Award (2025)

  • Date: June 27, 2025
  • Content: The CoA reaffirmed its jurisdiction and issued a supplemental award on project design.
  • India’s Response:
    • Declared the CoA is illegally constituted.
    • Reiterated all its findings and awards are void ab initio (null and void from the beginning).
    • Called the arbitration process a “charade at Pakistan’s behest”.

Post-Pahalgam Attack Escalation (April 2025)

  • India invoked treaty abeyance:
    • Declared that due to Pakistan’s continued support for terrorism, India is no longer bound by IWT obligations.
    • Linked to the terror attack in Pahalgam, carried out by The Resistance Front (TRF), a Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy.
    • Treating terrorism as a violation of the treaty’s spirit and as a basis for withdrawal from cooperation.

India’s Legal & Sovereign Stand

  • MEA’s Position:
    • India is exercising sovereign rights under international law.
    • No external tribunal can intervene in India’s internal affairs or strategic infrastructure.
    • India’s hydropower projects are within the treaty framework and international norms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *