Why India Can’t Legally Choke Eastern Rivers

For decades, Pakistan has upheld the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) as the bedrock of its water security. Signed in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank, the treaty allocated the three eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—to India for “unrestricted use,” while Pakistan retained rights over the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. Yet, as ecological pressures mount and environmental awareness grows, India’s water practices under the treaty are increasingly drawing scrutiny. By halting downstream flows and discharging untreated waste into riverbeds that cross into Pakistan, India appears to be violating not only the spirit of the IWT, but also Article II(1) which obliges India to use the eastern rivers only for “specified purposes” and to avoid waste. This conduct also contravenes established principles of customary international water law. Pakistan must now assert its right to environmental flows and challenge unchecked diversions that have brought ecological ruin to its eastern plains.

Mirage of Greening the Desert

India frequently justifies its diversions of the eastern rivers by citing efforts to irrigate Rajasthan and the Thar Desert. However, official data contradicts this rationale. A 2022 report by India’s Ministry of Jal Shakti noted that these irrigation projects impact less than 1% of Rajasthan’s cultivable land. Moreover, large swathes of this land have suffered waterlogging and salinisation, directly violating Article II(3) of the IWT, which stipulates that water use must be “beneficial.” Where water is diverted only to evaporate, seep, or degrade soil, its use becomes wasteful—and thus challengeable under the treaty.

Historically, the Sutlej flowed robustly into Pakistan, supporting biodiversity and local economies. Today, its flow is reduced to a trickle—or halted altogether—causing wetlands in Bahawalnagar and Kasur to dry up, groundwater levels to plummet, and agriculture to collapse. The Ravi has been reduced to a channel of toxic waste, fed by untreated discharges on both sides. This degradation violates the core tenet of “equitable and reasonable utilisation” upheld in international river governance frameworks, including Article 5 of the UN Watercourses Convention (1997) and Rule 12 of the Berlin Rules on Water Resources (2004).

For Pakistan, this is not just about water—it is about sovereignty, survival, and the right of future generations to inherit living rivers

Rethinking “Exclusive Use”

India’s claim of “exclusive use” is not absolute. The IWT, while granting India primary rights over the eastern rivers, does not authorise absolute sovereignty to cut off flows entirely. Article II(1) allows India to use the rivers for specific, beneficial purposes, not to the detriment of downstream states. Furthermore, Article II(4) states that India shall “let flow all waters” of the eastern rivers, not required for permitted uses.

This clause creates a “non-hoarding” obligation, meaning water not put to productive use must not be withheld. Thus, Pakistan has legal grounds to argue that non-utilised or wasted water must be released, especially when downstream ecological damage is provable. The emerging concept of “environmental flows” (e-flows)—minimum water flows required to sustain ecosystems—is gaining traction in international legal discourse, reinforcing Pakistan’s claim. The Berlin Rules (2004) explicitly recognise ecological sustainability as a governing principle (Rules 7 and 14), and the UN Watercourses Convention (Article 20) requires states to protect ecosystems dependent on international watercourses.

Pollution Across Borders

India’s actions not only involve water withholding but also transboundary pollution, which constitutes a clear violation of the “no harm rule” in international law. The Trail Smelter Arbitration (USA v. Canada, 1941) established the precedent that no state may use its territory to cause environmental harm to another. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) reaffirmed this principle in the Pulp Mills case (Argentina v. Uruguay, 2010), where it ruled that environmental impact assessments are obligatory for projects affecting shared watercourses.

In the case of the Ravi, India’s release of untreated industrial waste through the Hudiara Drain—carrying heavy metals and pathogens into Pakistan—is a textbook breach of the duty of cooperation and prevention of transboundary harm under Articles 7, 9, and 11 of the UN Watercourses Convention.

A 2021 PCRWR study revealed that 80% of the 1,200 million liters of untreated waste entering the Ravi daily originate from India, violating Pakistan’s right to a clean and habitable environment. These actions fall afoul of Rule 16 of the Berlin Rules, which obligates states to prevent water pollution that causes significant harm beyond their borders.

Towards a Legal and Diplomatic Reclaim

Pakistan must push for a reinterpretation of the IWT in line with evolving environmental norms. The World Bank, a guarantor of the treaty, now acknowledges sustainability and ecosystem protection as integral to water-sharing agreements. The ICJ’s Pulp Mills ruling offers Pakistan a legal avenue to demand independent environmental assessments of Indian water projects under Article IX(1) of the IWT, which allows recourse to arbitration or neutral expert determination.

The objective is not to annul the treaty, but to reframe it through contemporary principles of sustainable development, inter-generational equity, and ecological integrity—principles now embedded in global water governance.

Building Diplomatic Momentum

Pakistan must also leverage multilateral platforms. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UN Water Conference, and regional bodies like SAARC and ECO provide forums to raise concerns about e-flow denial and transboundary pollution. By internationalising the issue, Pakistan can pressure India to adopt cooperative, transparent, and ecologically sound water management practices.

Domestically, the creation of a National Rivers Revival Commission would be a pivotal institutional step. Such a body could monitor river health, recommend minimum e-flows, and prepare the legal groundwork for arbitration under Annexure F and G of the IWT, which outlines the procedure for referring disputes to a Court of Arbitration.

Water, Life, and Sovereignty

India cannot continue to withhold water and dump pollutants into rivers shared with Pakistan under the pretext of sovereignty. The IWT was never intended to legitimise environmental degradation. If the treaty is to endure, it must evolve to reflect the urgent realities of climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental justice.

For Pakistan, this is not just about water—it is about sovereignty, survival, and the right of future generations to inherit living rivers. International law, regional stability, and ecological morality all support its case.

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}