Schwarz also distinguished between the “functional” and “political” aspects of the Indus conflict. In his correspondence with the Indian and Pakistani leaders, Black claimed that the Indus conflict could be resolved more realistically if the functional aspects of the disagreements were negotiated outside of political considerations. He envisioned a group that would address the question of how best to use the waters of the Indus Basin, apart from questions of historical rights or allocations. For more than a year since the end of 2016, the World Bank has been working tirelessly to find an amicable solution to the latest disagreement and protect the treaty. Dozens of high-level meetings were convened and various proposals were discussed. The World Bank remains committed to acting in good faith, impartially and transparently in fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty, while continuing to support countries. The division of British India led to a conflict over the waters of the Indus Basin. The newly formed states were divided on how to share and manage what was essentially a coherent and unified irrigation network. In addition, the geography of the division was such that the source rivers of the Indus basin were in India. Pakistan felt threatened by the prospect of Indian control over the tributaries that supplied water to the Pakistani part of the basin. Where India certainly had its own ambitions for the profitable development of the basin, Pakistan felt seriously threatened by a conflict over the main source of water in its arable land. In the early years of the division, the waters of the Indus were divided by the Interconfessro Dominion Agreement of May 4, 1948. [32] This agreement required India to release sufficient water in the Pakistani regions of the basin in exchange for annual payments from the Pakistani government.

[33] The agreement was intended to meet immediate demands and negotiations on a more permanent solution followed. [34] However, neither side was prepared to compromise its respective positions and negotiations reached an impasse. From an Indian perspective, Pakistan could do nothing to force India to divert river water from one of its plans to Pakistan`s irrigation canals. [35] Pakistan wanted to take the case to the International Court of Justice at the time, but India refused, arguing that the conflict had a bilateral solution. [36] Each party must provide the other party with plans for the construction of engineering work that would affect the other party and provide data on that work. Annual inspections and data exchange continue undeterred by tensions on the subcontinent. .