Former Indian Water Commissioner Rebuts Pakistan’s Indus Treaty Narrative

Dr. Nafisat Makinde

A former Indian commissioner for the Indus Waters has rejected criticism by a Pakistani commentator over India’s implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty, arguing that New Delhi has acted within the treaty’s legal framework and accusing Pakistan of obstructing its implementation.

In a response to a letter by retired Brig. Dr. Raashid Wali Janjua published in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper on April 9, 2026, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Saxena, a former Indian Commissioner for Indus Waters, said Janjua’s arguments were “historically incomplete and legally imprecise.”

Saxena disputed Janjua’s reference to the suspension of water supplies through the Central Bari Doab and Depalpur canals in 1948 as evidence of India’s hostile intent. He said the canals drew water from headworks that became part of Indian territory after the 1947 partition of British India and that the dispute was resolved through the Inter-Dominion Agreement of May 4, 1948.

“Far from being an act of malice, this is evidence of India’s intent to resolve every issue amicably,” Saxena wrote.

Saxena also defended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, describing it as one of the world’s most generous transboundary water-sharing agreements from the perspective of a lower riparian state. He said India relinquished rights to about 80% of the Indus river system’s waters under the treaty and paid about £62 million in compensation for replacement works in what he described as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

He rejected claims that India had sought to deprive Pakistan of its share of river waters, saying India’s run-of-river hydroelectric projects on the western rivers comply with the treaty’s provisions.

Saxena said Pakistan had objected to projects including Uri II, Lower Kalnai, Kishanganga and Ratle, even where technical differences were minimal.

“The factual basis for objection was negligible to the point of being technical pretext rather than substantive concern,” he said.

Saxena also argued that Pakistan bypassed the treaty’s dispute resolution process by seeking a Court of Arbitration over the Kishanganga and Ratle projects before exhausting the Neutral Expert mechanism provided under the agreement.

He said India’s January 2023 notice seeking modification of the treaty under Article XII(3) was a right available under the agreement and reflected changing technical, developmental and operational circumstances rather than an attempt to abandon the treaty.

“India is exercising a Treaty right, not violating one,” Saxena wrote.

Saxena also argued that comparisons with water disputes involving Egypt and Ethiopia, and Syria and Iraq, were not applicable because those disputes are not governed by legally binding bilateral treaties comparable to the Indus Waters Treaty.

He said the treaty had endured for more than six decades because of what he described as India’s “generous attitude” and argued that it should not be used to obstruct India’s lawful use of waters allocated under the agreement.

Janjua’s original letter argued that the treaty had protected Pakistan’s water interests while accusing India of attempting to reduce downstream flows through infrastructure projects on rivers covered by the agreement. Saxena rejected those claims, maintaining that India’s actions remain consistent with the treaty’s legal provisions.