Both parties have won, and lost
Being neighbours means there are bound to be instances where disputes arise whose solution should take nothing more than a mutually agreed upon formula. It saves time and helps keep in check any escalation in hostility. That’s what the Indus Water Treaty was supposed to do for both Pakistan and India. However, a lack of timely action by Pakistan and India’s tactic of keeping Pakistan in dark about the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project led them to International Court of Arbitration, which while recognising India’s right of using water has put a restriction on it not to use it more than a minimum flow level.
Hailing the decision to be a victory for Indian or Pakistan is not going to stop any more disputes on water. Both countries have benefited from the decision and both have lost as well. Winning in a sense that Pakistan got its point of view accepted that India could not divert maximum water flow from a run-of-the-river project, and India that it was able to get its way with getting approved the diversion of minimum water flow. Losing, on the other hand, is a matter of perspective for India while for Pakistan it lies in its strategy on how it controls and monitors its rivers and how it gets India to comply with the IWT.
For Pakistan, the problem runs even deeper. It is not because it had a weak case that it could not get the decision entirely in its favour, it was instead a lack of timely action that led to its failure in getting its viewpoint across. Well, that and an incompetent crony who represented Pakistan at the ICA at The Hague. Under the IWT, both countries are allowed to build projects that do not hamper water flow level approved under the treaty. But playing a classic move, New Delhi kept Islamabad busy in the paperwork, proposals and discussions while it went ahead with scores of projects, many of them on the rivers only Pakistan had a right on. One such opportunity was missed when Musharraf hesitated and did not build a dam on Neelum river in AJK, despite demands by media and opposition.
The utility of a treaty is only observed in its practicality. The IWT has been seen by many as a lopsided one, if not entirely one-sided. India has taken advantage of the treaty ever since it was put into effect. Pakistan being a low riparian, it is naturally at a disadvantage. This makes it all the more important that it remains on its toes all the time regarding its water rights.
