International water law and hydropolitics: an enquiry into the water conflict between India and
Nepal
Harsh Vasani
To cite this article: Harsh Vasani (2023) International water law and hydropolitics: an enquiry
into the water conflict between India and Nepal, Water International, 48:2, 259-281, DOI:
10.1080/02508060.2023.2176595
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2023.2176595
Harsh Vasani
School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
ABSTRACT
Despite an open border, shared culture, religious ties and strong
people-to-people connectivity, governance of transboundary water
resources has often led to diplomatic conflicts between India and
Nepal. It is not unusual for hydro-development projects between
the two to run into delays or opposition, despite great domestic
need for water and electricity in both countries. Using fieldwork in
Delhi and Kathmandu, this paper illustrates the factors that impede
cooperation between the two sides on shared rivers and how the
inadequacies of international water laws manifest themselves in
bilateral negotiations on water governance. The paper locates the
benefit-sharing framework in international water law using the case
studies of the Pancheshwar and the SaptaKoshi–SunKoshi Project in
the Mahakali and Koshi basins.
KEYWORDS
Benefit-sharing; hydropower;
Pancheshwar; Koshi; UN
Watercourses Convention
(UNWC)
Introduction
Governance of transboundary water resources originating in the Himalayas and flowing
through Nepal into India has been a source of bitterness and animosity between the two
states. The Koshi and Gandak treaties signed by India and Nepal in 1954 and 1959,
respectively, had to be amended and revised in 1966 and 1964, respectively, following
protests by Nepal. The provisions of the Mahakali Treaty, signed in 1996 and ratified by
the Nepali Parliament in the same year, have not yet been realized. Despite an open
border, strong people-to-people connections, and a sense of shared culture, religion and
heritage, tensions over transboundary waters have often led to widespread hostility
against India among Nepali citizens, and water is also cited as the reason for ruptures
in the bilateral relations (Bhushal, 2014; Gyawali & Dixit, 1999; Swain, 2018). Based on
fieldwork in India and Nepal, I explain how the inadequacies and incongruities of the UN
Watercourses Convention (UNWC) stifle cooperation between the two states on multipurpose
reservoirs in the Mahakali and Koshi basins. In particular, I show how international
water law fails to provide a resolution on issues such as benefit-sharing, prior
versus equitable rights, equal versus equitable use, and calculating benefits.
It is becoming increasingly essential to address the inadequacies of international water
law as states turn to dams to address climate change impacts (Ahlers et al., 2015; Dye,
2019; Gerlak et al., 2019; Karambelkar, 2017). Having saturated domestic rivers, often
enough these dams are on shared, transboundary rivers (Elhance, 1999). Globally, there
are 286 transboundary rivers and lake basins (UN-Water, n.d.), and 468 aquifer systems
outside the EU, Switzerland and Norway (IGRAC, 2021). At least 153 countries have
territories within these transboundary rivers and lakes, and almost every country has
territory with a transboundary aquifer. These water resources face challenges arising
from increasing population, urbanization, industrialization, degradation of the environment
and hydrological variability (UN-Water, n.d.). As we will see, asymmetrical power
equations over these transboundary water resources governance and negotiations are
further complicated due to ambiguous and ineffectual international laws.
CONTACT Harsh Vasani h.vasani@uea.ac.uk
WATER INTERNATIONAL
2023, VOL. 48, NO. 2, 259–281
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2023.2176595
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
to read the full article please click on
^
International water law and hydropolitics: an enquiry into the water conflict between India and
Nepal
Harsh Vasani
To cite this article: Harsh Vasani (2023) International water law and hydropolitics: an enquiry
into the water conflict between India and Nepal, Water International, 48:2, 259-281, DOI:
10.1080/02508060.2023.2176595
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2023.2176595
Harsh Vasani
School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
ABSTRACT
Despite an open border, shared culture, religious ties and strong
people-to-people connectivity, governance of transboundary water
resources has often led to diplomatic conflicts between India and
Nepal. It is not unusual for hydro-development projects between
the two to run into delays or opposition, despite great domestic
need for water and electricity in both countries. Using fieldwork in
Delhi and Kathmandu, this paper illustrates the factors that impede
cooperation between the two sides on shared rivers and how the
inadequacies of international water laws manifest themselves in
bilateral negotiations on water governance. The paper locates the
benefit-sharing framework in international water law using the case
studies of the Pancheshwar and the SaptaKoshi–SunKoshi Project in
the Mahakali and Koshi basins.
KEYWORDS
Benefit-sharing; hydropower;
Pancheshwar; Koshi; UN
Watercourses Convention
(UNWC)
Introduction
Governance of transboundary water resources originating in the Himalayas and flowing
through Nepal into India has been a source of bitterness and animosity between the two
states. The Koshi and Gandak treaties signed by India and Nepal in 1954 and 1959,
respectively, had to be amended and revised in 1966 and 1964, respectively, following
protests by Nepal. The provisions of the Mahakali Treaty, signed in 1996 and ratified by
the Nepali Parliament in the same year, have not yet been realized. Despite an open
border, strong people-to-people connections, and a sense of shared culture, religion and
heritage, tensions over transboundary waters have often led to widespread hostility
against India among Nepali citizens, and water is also cited as the reason for ruptures
in the bilateral relations (Bhushal, 2014; Gyawali & Dixit, 1999; Swain, 2018). Based on
fieldwork in India and Nepal, I explain how the inadequacies and incongruities of the UN
Watercourses Convention (UNWC) stifle cooperation between the two states on multipurpose
reservoirs in the Mahakali and Koshi basins. In particular, I show how international
water law fails to provide a resolution on issues such as benefit-sharing, prior
versus equitable rights, equal versus equitable use, and calculating benefits.
It is becoming increasingly essential to address the inadequacies of international water
law as states turn to dams to address climate change impacts (Ahlers et al., 2015; Dye,
2019; Gerlak et al., 2019; Karambelkar, 2017). Having saturated domestic rivers, often
enough these dams are on shared, transboundary rivers (Elhance, 1999). Globally, there
are 286 transboundary rivers and lake basins (UN-Water, n.d.), and 468 aquifer systems
outside the EU, Switzerland and Norway (IGRAC, 2021). At least 153 countries have
territories within these transboundary rivers and lakes, and almost every country has
territory with a transboundary aquifer. These water resources face challenges arising
from increasing population, urbanization, industrialization, degradation of the environment
and hydrological variability (UN-Water, n.d.). As we will see, asymmetrical power
equations over these transboundary water resources governance and negotiations are
further complicated due to ambiguous and ineffectual international laws.
CONTACT Harsh Vasani h.vasani@uea.ac.uk
WATER INTERNATIONAL
2023, VOL. 48, NO. 2, 259–281
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2023.2176595
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
to read the full article please click on
^
