The minister made the remarks during a media interaction, clarifying that the central government does not intend to alter technical aspects of ongoing hydroelectric projects tied to the Indus Waters Treaty. “Where Indus Waters Treaty is concerned, no changes will be made for projects that are in the pipeline, because the technical details have been finalised,” he said. His comments appear aimed at dispelling speculation about potential treaty renegotiation or retroactive adjustments to approved projects.
However, for hydroelectric schemes that remain at the conceptual or design phase, the minister signalled a more flexible and assertive posture. “There are some projects that are in the initial stages, for which we can plan more water storage and electricity generation,” he added. This distinction between committed and yet-to-be-initiated projects allows authorities to increase water retention capacity and improve generation output in the future without affecting bilateral agreements or technical submissions already filed.
Hydropower projects in Jammu and Kashmir remain strategically significant for both regional development and national energy goals. The region’s vast water resources have long been recognised as pivotal to renewable energy expansion, especially in the upper Indus basin where run-of-the-river projects dominate. Several projects under construction or operation—including Ratle, Pakal Dul, and Kiru—have drawn attention from across the border, particularly in light of historical disputes over water sharing.
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan, grants specific usage rights over six rivers, allocating the three eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—to India and the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—primarily to Pakistan, though India retains limited rights for hydro projects on the western rivers. The treaty has endured decades of geopolitical friction, and successive governments have maintained a cautious yet firm interpretation of its clauses to enable development without triggering treaty violations.
Projects like Ratle and Kishanganga have faced procedural scrutiny by global arbitration panels in the past, highlighting the sensitive interplay of infrastructure, environment, and diplomacy in the Indus basin. By indicating that already-sanctioned schemes will not be altered, the power ministry aims to preserve international procedural clarity while pressing forward with ambitious future plans.
Manohar Lal’s announcement comes as the government pushes to increase the share of hydropower in the country’s energy mix. While solar and wind dominate India’s renewable energy narrative, hydroelectricity remains crucial for grid stability, especially given its flexibility in peak load management. Large hydro projects—particularly in the Himalayan belt—offer not only clean energy but also flood control and irrigation benefits, though they face resistance on ecological and displacement grounds.
Jammu and Kashmir, owing to its terrain and river systems, has been earmarked for hydro capacity augmentation over the next decade. Official data shows more than 3,000 MW of capacity either under implementation or awaiting clearance in the Union Territory. Increasing the water storage component for projects in the early planning phase will allow for greater seasonal regulation, which in turn enhances output reliability.
Technocrats and policy analysts have interpreted the minister’s comments as a strategic recalibration that takes advantage of the leeway available within treaty provisions. While India cannot alter the flow of the Indus system in a way that harms downstream users in Pakistan, it retains the right to use the water for power generation and domestic use within prescribed limits. Enhanced storage allows for better use of this entitlement, particularly in dry seasons or under fluctuating climate conditions.
Manohar Lal’s stance also aligns with broader national priorities under the National Electricity Plan and India’s climate commitments. As storage-integrated hydroelectric projects are seen as more adaptive to climatic extremes, the new direction complements both energy transition targets and regional resilience planning. However, environmental clearances, local opposition, and geological challenges continue to slow down project execution across the region.