section_path: Scrutiny/Indian Concerns
section_name: Indian Concerns
paragraph_text: Indian Concerns
  
  Diplomat and ex-UN envoy Dilip Sinha argues that the Indus Waters Treaty has been unfair to India for several key reasons. He contends that the treaty, brokered under significant external pressure, resulted in a highly unequal division of the Indus basin’s waters, granting Pakistan near-exclusive rights to the three western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—which account for about 80% of the basin’s water, while India was left with the much smaller eastern rivers and only limited, tightly regulated rights on the western rivers. Sinha highlights that no other upper riparian state in the world has ceded such a large share of its water resources to a lower riparian, noting that countries like China and Turkey have refused to enter into similar agreements with their downstream neighbors. He also criticizes the treaty’s lack of an exit clause or expiry provision, arguing that this makes it uniquely inflexible compared to other international river agreements, such as the Columbia River Treaty between the US and Canada, which allows for withdrawal with notice. Furthermore, Sinha points out that Pakistan has consistently adopted an obstructionist approach, raising objections to almost every Indian project on the western rivers and resorting to international arbitration, thereby preventing India from even utilizing its limited rights under the treaty. He concludes that the only way to address what he sees as an “unfairly high share of the water to Pakistan” is through a full-scale revision or abrogation of the treaty.
  
  According to Rahul Bhandari writing for Hindustan Times, India considers the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) unfair due to its disproportionate allocation of water resources and operational constraints. Under the treaty, Pakistan receives 79% of the Indus basin’s waters, while India—despite being the upper riparian state with a larger geographical share of the basin—is allocated just 21%. This allocation diverges from criteria like population, cultivated land, and drainage area, which would entitle India to at least 42.8% of the waters.
  
  Diplomat and ex-UN envoy Dilip Sinha argues that the Indus Waters Treaty has been unfair to India for several key reasons. He contends that the treaty, brokered under significant external pressure, resulted in a highly unequal division of the Indus basin’s waters, granting Pakistan near-exclusive rights to the three western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—which account for about 80% of the basin’s water, while India was left with the much smaller eastern rivers and only limited, tightly regulated rights on the western rivers. Sinha highlights that no other upper riparian state in the world has ceded such a large share of its water resources to a lower riparian, noting that countries like China and Turkey have refused to enter into similar agreements with their downstream neighbors. He also criticizes the treaty’s lack of an exit clause or expiry provision, arguing that this makes it uniquely inflexible compared to other international river agreements, such as the Columbia River Treaty between the US and Canada, which allows for withdrawal with notice. Furthermore, Sinha points out that Pakistan has consistently adopted an obstructionist approach, raising objections to almost every Indian project on the western rivers and resorting to international arbitration, thereby preventing India from even utilizing its limited rights under the treaty. He concludes that the only way to address what he sees as an “unfairly high share of the water to Pakistan” is through a full-scale revision or abrogation of the treaty.
  
  According to Rahul Bhandari writing for Hindustan Times, India considers the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) unfair due to its disproportionate allocation of water resources and operational constraints. Under the treaty, Pakistan receives 79% of the Indus basin’s waters, while India—despite being the upper riparian state with a larger geographical share of the basin—is allocated just 21%. This allocation diverges from criteria like population, cultivated land, and drainage area, which would entitle India to at least 42.8% of the waters.