River Water Disputes
India–Pakistan: The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)
Guys, the story of the Indus River is not just about geography — it’s about how a river system became a test of political trust between two newly born nations.
After 1947, when India and Pakistan were partitioned, both countries inherited parts of the same river system — the Indus and its tributaries.
The challenge was simple in geography, but complex in politics:
“Who owns the water that flows across a divided land?”
🧾 Background — The Partition and the First Water Crisis
After Partition, the headworks (control structures) of many irrigation canals fell on the Indian side (Punjab), while the canal command areas were on the Pakistan side.
To address this, both nations signed the Inter-Dominion Accord (1948), under which India agreed to release water to Pakistan in exchange for annual payments.
But soon, trust eroded. Payments were disputed, water deliveries were questioned, and both sides began to plan independent irrigation projects.
To prevent an escalating crisis, both countries approached the World Bank for technical and financial assistance.
The World Bank, sensing the gravity of the issue, offered to mediate — leading to a landmark treaty.
🕊️ The Indus Waters Treaty, 1960
In 1960, after nine years of negotiation, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed by:
- Jawaharlal Nehru (Prime Minister of India)
- Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan)
- W.A.B. Iliff (Vice President of the World Bank)
This treaty remains, even today, a rare success story of peaceful conflict resolution between India and Pakistan — despite multiple wars.
⚖️ Key Provisions of the Treaty
A. Water Sharing
The Indus River system includes six major rivers — three eastern and three western.
Eastern Rivers | Western Rivers |
---|---|
Ravi | Indus |
Beas | Jhelum |
Sutlej | Chenab |
According to the treaty:
- India received unrestricted use of the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej).
- Pakistan received exclusive use of the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) — except for limited, non-consumptive usage by India.
Effectively, 80% of the total Indus basin water went to Pakistan, and 20% to India.
B. Annexure C and D — India’s Limited Rights on Western Rivers
While Pakistan has control over the western rivers, the treaty allows India some specific uses:
- Annexure C – India may use water for limited agriculture on western rivers.
- Annexure D – India can construct run-of-the-river hydropower projects, meaning no live storage (no large reservoirs) is allowed.
However:
- India must follow specific design parameters.
- India must share the project design with Pakistan in advance.
- Pakistan can raise objections within 3 months of receiving the design.
- India is also permitted limited storage for conservation and flood control purposes.
C. Permanent Indus Commission (PIC)
The treaty established the Permanent Indus Commission — a bilateral body with one commissioner from each country.
Its tasks include:
- Data exchange,
- Monitoring compliance, and
- Acting as the first level of dispute resolution.
They are required to meet at least once every year.
⚖️ Dispute Resolution Mechanism – A Three-Tier Process
The IWT lays out a graded mechanism for resolving disagreements:
1️⃣ First Level:
Minor disputes → discussed at Permanent Indus Commission or inter-governmental level.
2️⃣ Second Level:
If unresolved, either party can approach the World Bank to appoint a Neutral Expert (NE) — usually a technical authority.
3️⃣ Third Level:
If disputes persist or involve treaty interpretation, the issue may be referred to a Court of Arbitration (CoA).
This step-by-step structure has helped prevent the water issue from escalating into open conflict for over 60 years.
⚙️ The Core of Contention — India’s Hydroelectric Projects
Despite the treaty’s clarity, interpretational differences have caused recurring friction.
Key Projects under Dispute:
Project Name | River | Location | Pakistan’s Concern |
---|---|---|---|
Kishanganga HEP | Kishanganga (tributary of Jhelum) | Bandipore, J&K | Flow diversion affects downstream use |
Ratle HEP | Chenab | Kishtwar, J&K | Possible violation of design norms |
Salal Dam | Chenab | Reasi, J&K | Silt control and storage concerns |
Baglihar HEP | Chenab | Doda, J&K | Gating design objections |
Pakal Dul Project | Chenab | Kishtwar, J&K | Storage volume and flood control |
Lower Kalnai Project | Kalnai (tributary of Chenab) | Doda–Kishtwar | Storage and sedimentation |
Kiru Project | Chenab | Kishtwar | Run-of-river classification disputed |
🧩 The Kishanganga Case — A Turning Point
- In 2007, India proposed the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (KHEP) on the Kishanganga River, which flows into Pakistan as the Neelum.
- Pakistan took the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (Hague) in 2010.
- In 2013, the CoA ruled in India’s favour, declaring KHEP a run-of-the-river project and hence permissible.
- However, the Court directed India to maintain a minimum downstream flow to protect Pakistan’s agricultural use.
Despite this, tensions persisted.
🔄 Recent Developments (Post-2025)
- On 23 April 2025, in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir, the Government of India announced that it would hold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance, citing national security and Pakistan’s alleged backing of cross-border terrorism.
- Subsequently, India stated that it would not restore treaty operations until Pakistan credibly ceases support to cross-border terrorism.
Karnataka–Tamil Nadu: The Cauvery Water Dispute
Guys, the story of the Cauvery dispute is not just about water — it’s about history, politics, law, and geography blending together.
The river originates in one state, flows through another, and nourishes both.
This creates what we call in geography a “riparian conflict” — a conflict between upper and lower riparian states.
🕰️ Historical Background — The Roots of the Conflict
The roots of this issue go back to the British colonial era — long before India became independent.
At that time, the river was shared between:
- The Princely State of Mysore (now Karnataka), and
- The Madras Presidency (now Tamil Nadu and Puducherry).
Two key agreements shaped this relationship:
- 1892 Agreement, and
- 1924 Agreement (valid for 50 years).
⚖️ The 1924 Agreement: Foundation of the Modern Dispute
This agreement became the benchmark for all future conflicts.
It laid down:
- Water allocation:
- 75% to Madras Presidency (Tamil Nadu + Puducherry)
- 23% to Mysore (Karnataka)
- 2% to Travancore (Kerala)
- Duration: 50 years (till 1974)
- Consent clause: The upper riparian (Mysore) must obtain consent from the lower riparian (Madras) for any new reservoir or dam.
🚧 Major Constructions
- In Karnataka: Krishna Raja Sagar (KRS), Harangi, Hemavathi, Kabini.
- In Tamil Nadu: The Mettur Dam on the main course of the Cauvery.
However, in 1974, when the 1924 agreement lapsed, Karnataka began constructing new projects without seeking Tamil Nadu’s consent.
That’s when the long-standing Cauvery dispute resurfaced.
⚖️ Legal Framework – The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT)
To resolve inter-state river conflicts, India has a law —
the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Under this, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was set up in 1990.
📜 The Tribunal’s Final Award (2007)
After years of hearings, the CWDT gave its final award in 2007, allocating 740 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) of water as follows:
State / UT | Allocation (TMC) |
---|---|
Tamil Nadu | 419 |
Karnataka | 270 |
Kerala | 30 |
Puducherry | 7 |
Total | 740 TMC |
⚖️ Supreme Court’s Final Verdict (2018)
In 2018, the Supreme Court of India — acting as the final authority — called the Cauvery River a “national asset”, meaning no single state can claim ownership.
It made the following adjustments to the Tribunal’s award:
State / UT | Revised Allocation (TMC) |
---|---|
Karnataka | 284.75 (270 + 14.75) |
Tamil Nadu | 404.25 (419 – 14.75) |
Kerala | 30 |
Puducherry | 7 |
Total = 740 TMC, unchanged.
The Court also:
- Directed that this arrangement shall remain valid for 15 years, and
- Introduced the idea of “surplus water” — extra water during high-flow years to be shared equally by all four states.
🏢 Establishment of Cauvery Management Institutions
(A) Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA)
Formed in 2018 under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (1956) to ensure:
- Implementation of the Tribunal and Supreme Court awards,
- Supervision of reservoir operations,
- Regulation of releases by Karnataka,
- And monitoring at the Billigundulu gauge station (Karnataka–TN border).
(B) Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC)
Works under the CWMA to:
- Track daily reservoir levels, inflows, and outflows,
- Maintain transparency in water-sharing schedules.
💧 How the Water Is Shared
- The water year is from June to May.
- In a Normal Year, Karnataka must release 177.25 TMC to Tamil Nadu —
of which 123.14 TMC must flow during the Southwest Monsoon (June–September).
It is during deficit monsoon years that tensions flare — because both states depend heavily on the river for irrigation and drinking water.
🌾 Kuruvai and Samba Cultivation – The Agricultural Link
Understanding the agriculture calendar of Tamil Nadu is key to this dispute.
- Kuruvai Paddy
- Short-duration, 90–120 days
- Sown between June–September (SW Monsoon)
- Entirely dependent on Mettur Dam releases from Karnataka
- Samba Paddy
- Main crop season, August–November
- Relies on residual water from Mettur.
👉 Note:
The Cauvery Delta gets very little SW monsoon rainfall.
So, even a slight delay or shortfall in Karnataka’s water release directly threatens TN’s farmers.
Thus, what appears as a hydrological conflict is actually a livelihood crisis for millions.
⚙️ The Mekedatu Project – A New Flashpoint
- Proposed by Karnataka, the Mekedatu Reservoir Project aims to:
- Supply drinking water to Bengaluru, and
- Generate 400 MW of power.
- Tamil Nadu opposes it, fearing it may reduce water flow downstream and violate Supreme Court guidelines.
- Tamil Nadu insists that no new project should be undertaken in the upper riparian region without the Court’s approval.
This project remains under dispute, symbolizing how new demands keep reactivating old conflicts.
Karnataka–Goa: The Kalasa–Banduri Nala Project (Mahadayi Dispute)
The Context
- The Kalasa–Banduri Nala Project (planned in 1989) aims to divert water from Mahadayi River to Malaprabha River to supply drinking water to Belagavi, Dharwad, and Gadag districts of Karnataka.
The Problem
- Goa objected, arguing that this diversion would reduce flow into Goa, harming its ecology and agriculture, as Mahadayi (Mandovi) is the lifeline of Goa.
Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal (2010)
Formed in 2010 under the same Inter-State Water Disputes Act.
Final Award (2018)
State | Water Allocation (TMC) |
---|---|
Karnataka | 13.42 |
Maharashtra | 1.33 |
Goa | 24 |
- This was notified in February 2020 by the Union Government.
- Despite the award, political tension continues, as Goa fears environmental damage from Karnataka’s diversion plans.
🗺️ Mahadayi River
- Origin: Bhimgad Wildlife Sanctuary, Belagavi (Karnataka).
- Flow: Westward, through Karnataka → Goa → Arabian Sea.
- It’s one of the two main rivers of Goa (the other being Zuari).
Thus, the Mahadayi issue mirrors the Cauvery model — an upper vs lower riparian conflict, complicated by ecological and political sensitivities.
🧠 Analytical Insights:
1️⃣ Nature of Indian River Disputes
- Most disputes are between upper (control) and lower (dependence) riparian states.
- They arise due to seasonal water scarcity, population pressure, and political competition.
2️⃣ Legal–Institutional Gap
- The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (1956) allows tribunals,
but these take decades to deliver judgments. - Moreover, there is no strong enforcement mechanism — leading to repeated court interventions.
3️⃣ Role of Judiciary
- The Supreme Court has emerged as a de facto arbiter of river disputes, treating rivers as national assets that transcend state boundaries.
- This reflects the evolving “federal ecology” of India — where states share both rights and responsibilities.
4️⃣ The Agricultural–Climatic Connection
- Conflicts like Cauvery intensify because monsoons are erratic.
When rains fail, upstream states store water for themselves, leaving downstream states vulnerable. - Thus, these disputes are not just political; they are deeply tied to climate variability and regional dependence on irrigation.
5️⃣ The Way Forward
- India needs basin-level integrated river management,
not piecemeal state-by-state control. - Promote water-use efficiency, crop diversification (less water-intensive crops), and real-time data sharing.
🌍 Conclusion
The Cauvery and Mahadayi disputes remind us that rivers are both natural and emotional resources — they flow not just through land, but through the lives and identities of people.
In essence, these conflicts are not about dividing water;
they are about sharing responsibility — to use it wisely, equitably, and sustainably.