I'm sorry, what has Dar Sb been doing since April 23rd? Did there exist a 'contingency plan' somewhere (within our IWC or FO) to deal with suspension of IWT? If not, why?!
Prima facie, Mr Modi had been signaling for the past two years that he wanted IWT reviewed/renegotiated; mind-boggling, Dar Sb has woken up now. The whole world knew that Pakistan-India relations were getting strained over IWT since the days of PM Manmohan Singh. Recall, Kishenganga started in/around 2007 and, in 2013, the CoA ruled pretty much against Pakistan. An IGO in Isb was modelling Pakistan-India water disputes way back in mid 1990s, but everyone was seemingly lost in their own worlds. And it's also not that difficult to modify a Run-of-the-River (Diversion) hydropower facility to a Dam (Impoundment) hydropower facility, especially if India had, assumedly, already prepared multiple designs, one for the Commissioner & CoA, and an internal design to operationalize later. Even if not, it would just cost a little money and time, unless IWT could be salvaged in our favour and peacefully.
Not clear though... do Dar Sb now want to go to UNSC over IWT, or over annexation of IOJ&K, or over Indian-supported terrorism in Pakistan, or over general threat to peace in the region? Will Dar Sb demand and can pull off the revival of UNCIP (dissolved around 1950), or get a UN Special Rapporteur appointed or a UN Commission of Inquiry on Kashmir established? How will UNSC resolve a "Treaty" dispute?!
Not privy to Indian technical demands for renegotiation/amendment of IWT during the past 2 years. Don't know what's in there. Not explaining for India, but what if India argues, even though her action is unilateral and outside the scope of IWT, that it has not reneged IWT, just "put it in abeyance" because M/S Dar Sb & Sharif Sb did not address their requests for renegotiation since 2023? Why has India recalled its ED in the WB and what will it aim for at the WB with its new rep now? What if UNSC simply asks Dar Sb & Sharif Sb, without even public debate, to sit down with their buddies on the other side and renegotiate IWT (i.e., eventually, to their whims and wishes?). Is this a theatre?!
If I recall correctly, when Pakistan made a representation for Kishenganga to WB, the WB refused to intervene. Has Dar Sb activated the first channel of dispute resolution under IWT, has our IWC Commissioner lodged a formal complaint (call it cease and desist, or grievance, or whatever notice) to his counterpart in India, per Article IX of IWT? Has someone even formally notified the WB, let alone lodge a grievance, that India has "put the IWT in abeyance" in contravention of, say Article XI of the Treaty? Sorry, I may have missed these pieces of news. Plz tick the boxes.
Those interested can read the IWT, and judge for themselves. E.G.
Article IX
SETTLEMENT OF DIFFERENCES AND DISPUTES
(1)
Any question which arises between the Parties concerning the
interpretation or
application of this Treaty or the
existence of any fact which, if established, might constitute a breach of this Treaty
shall first be examined by the Commission, which will endeavour to resolve the question by agreement.
(2) If the Commission does not reach agreement on any of the questions mention ed in Paragraph (1), then a difference will be deemed to have arisen, which shall be dealt with as follows : [....]
Article XI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Each of the Parties agrees that it will not invoke this Treaty, anything contained therein, or anything arising out of the execution thereof, in support of any of its own rights or claims whatsoever or in disputing any of the rights or claims whatsoever of the other Party, other than those rights or claims which are expressly recognized or waived in this Treaty.
Indus Waters Treaty, 1960
