Nepalnews.com Mercantile Communications Pvt. Ltd.

The Indo-Pakistan dispute on the Indus arose immediately after the partition in 1947.

M. Zafrulla Khan, the Pakistan representative in the Security Council presented about it during a Security Council debate on the 16 th December 1952. The partial text is given below:

"The partition of the Punjab cut across the river system of the Province…….The partition line was so drawn that two of the rivers - Sutlej together with its tributary Bias, and Ravi - while originating in India, later on flow into Pakistan….On April 1, 1948…. India turned off the waters of these rivers which used to flow into Pakistan.."

India's position on the water right principle she is subscribing to has been clearly stated in the Indo-Pakistan Agreement on Indus (Interim) signed on the 4 th May, 1948. It is stated: "..the propriety rights in the waters of the rivers in East Punjab (India) vest wholly in the East Punjab.."

West Punjab(Pakistan) disputed India's contention. Its view being that in accordance with international law and equity West Punjab had a right to the waters of the East Punjab rivers. Finally India and Pakistan came to an agreement. The Indus Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960. The Indus Treaty provided that the waters of the contentious rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej would be for the exclusive use of India. However, India would have to pay Pakistan some compensation for the construction of projects to tap other rivers in Pakistan to replace the supply from the above three rivers.

The Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that the Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law- both in general and international water resources- such disputes as are submitted to it shall apply international conventions, treaties between states, customs, general principles of law, etc. Thus it is necessary to analyze the reasons behind various past international disputes related with water particularly in our subcontinent that would give a clear picture about the stand of each country on matters of international water right issues. The Indus and Farakka issues are two perfect examples. Such study would help Nepal to develop a good strategy for protecting our own water rights without offending others

India had been subscribing all along to the principle that water belongs to the country where it originates. India turned off the waters which used to flow into Pakistan to irrigate lands. India took such action according to N.D. Gulhati (the Indian negotiator for the Treaty on the Indus) because the East Punjab (India) was anxious to establish its exclusive ownership. In the final treaty on the Indus the principle of establishment of right due to prior appropriation of water was ignored. The Treaty went in favour of a principle based on the sovereignty of a state over its national domain. The Indus Treaty might have set a precedent for the future. But in the Article-XI a special provision to restrict its use has been made. So it could not become a law. The Article XI of the Indus Treaty has been presented below:

It is expressly understood that
this Treaty governs the rights and obligations of each party in relation to the other with respect only to the use of the waters of the rivers and matters incidental thereto, and
nothing contained in this Treaty, and nothing arising out of the execution thereof, shall be construed as constituting a recognition or waiver(whether tacit, by implication or otherwise) of any rights or claims whatsoever of either of the parties other than those rights or claims which are expressly recognized or waived in this Treaty.

Each of the Parties agrees that it will not invoke this Treaty, anything contained therein, or any thing 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.

Nothing in this Treaty shall be construed by the Parties as in any way establishing any general principle of law or any precedent.
The rights and obligations of each Party under this Treaty shall remain unaffected by any provisions contained in, or by anything arising out of this execution of, any agreement establishing the Indus Basin Development Fund.

India needed a greater part of the Ganges flow in the dry seasons for flushing the silts into the sea from the port area in Calcutta. India must have considered that it is allowed to take up a scheme to divert the flow because of her sovereignty right over the domain. However, the Ganges is a navigable river. The diversion would have violated the International Barcelona Convention on the regime of navigable waterways. This convention was ratified by British Empire that included India also in 1922. India to free herself to undertake the Ganges diversion scheme, denounced the Barcelona Convention to take effect from 26 March, 1957. Soon after that India commenced the Ganges diversion scheme at Farakka in 1960s.

Very recently the Treaty of the Ganges water at Farakka has been concluded between India and Bangladesh. This Treaty has a similarity to the Indus Treaty in one important matter of great interest to us. It contains at the very beginning in the preamble of the Treaty itself a statement that this Treaty will not affect the rights and entitlements of either country other than those covered by the Treaty and will not establish any general principles of law or precedent.

The Indus Treaty and the Treaty of Ganges could not be construed as establishing law or precedent because of the provision in the treaty to restrict such use. However, these treaties can help us to come to some important conclusions. We can infer from these treaties that in the absence of imposition of restriction, a treaty may be construed to imply the following:

It can set a general principle of law. It can service as a precedent for similar cases in future. Any one of the Parties can invoke a treaty, anything contained therein, or anything arising out of the execution thereof, in support of any of its own rights or claims whatsoever or disputing any of the rights or claims whatsoever of the other party.

The revised Gandak and Kosi Treaties do not have any provision to restrict their application in similar other cases. So they can serve as a precedent for similar other cases in future. So far as the transboundary river treaties are concerned, the Kosi Treaty is the latest. Thus the Kosi Treaty could serve as a precedent to Karnali and other transboundary rivers.