Turbulence has been a trait that can be used to describe India-Pakistan relations all throughout. Amid the perpetual state of turbulence, if there is one thing that has largely remained stable, it is the Indus Water Treaty (IWT). Signed in September 1960 after almost a decade-long negotiation mediated by the World Bank, the treaty emerged as an exemplar of an effective water-sharing arrangement between upper riparian and lower riparian states. All this shaped up amid an ever-hostile situation between the two arch-rivals, India and Pakistan, at a time when the wounds of the Partition had not even healed. The treaty provides India unrestricted access to the use of waters in the eastern rivers – Sutlej, Beas, Ravi, and their tributaries. India is also allowed to use the waters of the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, and their tributaries — without consuming them and in a way that doesn’t obstruct the flow of the rivers to Pakistan. It is the utilisation of the waters of the western rivers by India that has emerged as a major inflexion point. Pakistan has been raising objections around India’s run-of-the-river hydroelectricity projects on the western rivers. The most recent instance of the objection, which also served as a trigger for Pakistan to approach the permanent court of arbitration for the resolution of the conflict, was around the Kishanganga and Ratle projects. Kishanganga hydroelectric project is a 330-MW project on River Jhelum and was fully commissioned in 2018. The Ratle project, on the other hand, is an 850-MW project and was commissioned in 2021. It may be noted that the execution of these projects has been lingering for around a decade, largely due to administrative inertia. But now, after the abrogation of Article 360, the Indian government is going full throttle with the implementation of the projects. In fact, even before the abrogation of Article 360, in September 2016, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, asserted that “Blood and water cannot flow together” — vaguely referring to a possible diversion from the treaty. Around the same time, a vow was made that not a drop of water flowing out of Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi would reach Pakistan. These were strong statements and clear enough signals that India could leverage its upstream position if the need arises. Pakistan, on the other hand, has been raising baseless allegations against India. Its assertion is that implementation of the ongoing hydroelectric projects will deny Pakistan its rightful share of the river waters. These allegations don’t hold much water, as run-of-the-river projects — in comparison to large reservoir hydroelectric projects — hold back abysmal amounts of water. However, when it comes to the Kishanganga river water project, it is reported to divert the water flow (if not hold it back for consumption) from entering Pakistan as Neelum River. Broadly speaking, Kishanganga and Neelum are alternative names for the same river in their respective countries. In this case, while India doesn’t obstruct the waters of the river, it might be affecting Pakistan’s river water projects in the Neelum River. It is also argued in some quarters that India is trying to change the situation on the ground, which will be hard to alter in the coming future, irrespective of what resolution outcomes happen to be. Given that both parties have their own version of the truth, it is hard to ascertain who is escalating the conflict and endangering the hitherto stable treaty. Yet another contention has surfaced in the approach adopted by both parties to resolve the conflict. India is rooting for a graded approach where the first two resolution mechanisms — bilateral negotiations and neutral expert’s intervention — provided under the treaty are exhausted before going to the arbitration mechanism. Pakistan, on the contrary, has arbitrarily gone for a permanent court of arbitration. Even more problematic is the World Bank’s mediation approach that first stalled both the upper-level mechanisms and then initiated both simultaneously. These abhorrent approaches adopted by Pakistan and the World Bank have prompted India to send a notice to its western neighbour expressing its intent to modify the provisions of the 62-year-old treaty. India is right in seeking a review of the treaty rather than prematurely allowing an international arbitrator to creep in, who can, by default, injunct the development process in the Union Territory. For how long? There are no clear answers as of now. It will be crucial to observe whether the Indus Water Treaty sustains this storm without undergoing much damage!