KEY POINTS
- The Indus Waters Treaty divided the Indus Basin’s rivers between India and Pakistan to ensure equitable water sharing
- The treaty remained a rare success story of India-Pakistan cooperation, preventing major water conflicts since 1960
- The Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) was created as a dispute-resolution body
- The World Bank played a key role in legal mediation through Neutral Experts and Courts of Arbitration
- India’s construction of hydroelectric projects like Kishanganga in 2007, Baghlihar in 1992 and Ratle in 2013 on western rivers gives it illegal control over water flow
- Indian illegal hydroelectric projects undermining Pakistan’s rights under the Indus Waters Treaty
- India announced suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty following the Pahalgam incident
ISLAMABAD: For over six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) stood as a rare example of cooperation between two bitterly opposed nuclear neighbours—India and Pakistan.
Signed in 1960 with the World Bank’s facilitation, the treaty has weathered wars, border skirmishes, and deep political hostility.
However recent developments have shaken this long-standing agreement to its core.
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam incident, India has reportedly decided to halt the flow of Indus River waters to Pakistan—an unprecedented move interpreted by Islamabad as an “act of war.”
This suspension is not just a tactical diplomatic manoeuvre; it marks a tectonic shift in regional geopolitics, as water security joins the arsenal of strategic statecraft.
With rising climate concerns, dwindling water resources, and intensifying bilateral mistrust, the future of the IWT hangs by a thread.
History and Framework of the Treaty
The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, by then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India and President Ayub Khan of Pakistan.
The treaty, brokered by the World Bank, sought to resolve disputes over the shared Indus River Basin, which stretches across Tibet, India, and Pakistan and supports the livelihoods of over 300 million people.
Under the Treaty
India received exclusive rights to the eastern rivers: Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej.
Pakistan was granted rights to the western rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, though India could use them for non-consumptive purposes like hydropower, navigation, and limited irrigation.
The IWT established the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), a bilateral mechanism to oversee implementation and resolve disputes through technical dialogue.
The Treaty That Survived Wars
Despite multiple wars (1965, 1971, 1999) and near-constant political hostility, the IWT endured as a symbol of functional diplomacy.
It remained intact even when diplomatic relations were frozen or armed conflict loomed. For decades, it was hailed as one of the world’s most successful transboundary water-sharing agreements.
It also prevented large-scale disputes over water allocation, even when both nations faced droughts, floods, or political crises. For Pakistan, whose agriculture and economy depend on the Indus system, the treaty has been a vital security guarantee.
In 2013, the Court of Arbitration delivered a win for Pakistan, mandating that India maintain minimum environmental flows downstream of the Kishanganga project and uphold restrictions on reservoir drawdown—an affirmation of the treaty’s strength in resolving intricate engineering disputes.
Amidst a high-profile dispute with India over the construction of the Kishanganga hydropower project, which was then before the International Court of Arbitration (COA), Pakistan’s government took the drastic step of removing Jamaat Ali Shah from his position as the Permanent Indus Water Commissioner in 2010.
Shah’s dismissal came after allegations that he failed to safeguard the nation’s water rights, particularly by not aggressively pursuing Pakistan’s case against India’s construction of the Kishanganga dam on the Neelam River.
This decision reflected the mounting tensions over the management of shared water resources and the sensitive nature of international negotiations between the two countries.
But that delicate balance began to unravel after the 2016 Uri attack. India froze routine cooperation, accelerated long-stalled dam projects, and started weaving water into its broader security narrative.
Though it still claimed to act “within the pact,” the spirit of collaboration had clearly begun to erode.
That equilibrium shifted further in 2023 when India formally triggered Article XII(3)—the clause allowing treaty changes only through mutual agreement—and called for a renegotiation.
Citing climate change, developmental priorities, and what it called persistent Pakistani roadblocks, India pushed for a new deal. But Pakistan stood firm, rejecting any move to rewrite the rules of a pact it sees as a lifeline.
In the months that followed, the two rivals entrenched themselves in rival legal paths—India opting for a Neutral Expert to assess technical dam design issues, while Pakistan advanced its case before a Court of Arbitration.
By early 2025, both tracks were running simultaneously, creating a legal paradox the treaty never anticipated.
India’s latest declaration to “suspend” its treaty obligations marks the peak of this steadily rising tension.
For the first time since the treaty’s signing in 1960, a signatory has effectively walked away from its cooperative and procedural commitments. Whether this is high-stakes brinkmanship or the start of a definitive rupture remains uncertain.
The Indus and its tributaries, which have supported civilizations for millennia, now stand as a test of two nuclear-armed nations’ ability to cooperate.
The months and years ahead will reveal whether reason prevails or if the subcontinent plunges into a new, unpredictable era of unilateral control over its most precious resource: water.
Indian Violations and Pakistan’s Concerns
From Islamabad’s perspective, the stability offered by the Indus Waters Treaty is now unravelling—and India is to blame.
Key Violations Pakistan Points to Include
Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (330 MW) on the Neelum River, a Jhelum tributary.
Ratle Hydroelectric Project (850 MW) on the Chenab River.
Proposed water diversion and interlinking projects in Indian-administered Kashmir.
While India maintains these are “run-of-the-river” projects allowed under the treaty, Pakistan argues that the design features give India control over water flow, thereby violating both the spirit and letter of the treaty.
This control, critics argue, allows India to manipulate water releases, especially during critical planting and harvesting periods, threatening Pakistan’s food security and livelihoods.
Escalation: India’s Shift Post-Pahalgam
Following the Pahalgam attack, which New Delhi blames on cross-border elements, India has:
- Announced a plan to suspend the IWT.
- Outlined short-term measures like desilting to reduce water flow.
- Developed medium and long-term plans to divert or store water from western rivers.
These measures could redefine how India and Pakistan navigate their most vital shared lifeline—water.
The real danger isn’t a sudden shutting of the tap—it’s the slow, creeping uncertainty now seeping into a system that millions trust for survival every single day.
While no infrastructure currently exists to block major flows, experts say India can reduce flows by 5–10% initially, sending a strong political signal to Pakistan.
The move may be symbolic for now—but it lifts the decades-old restraint on India’s use of water as leverage.
Geopolitical Implications: A Nuclear Flashpoint Over Water
Pakistan has reacted furiously, calling India’s move an “act of war.” As the lower riparian state, Pakistan is more vulnerable. Its 80% agriculture and one-third hydropower depend on the western rivers.
An abrupt reduction in flow could trigger economic, humanitarian, and ecological crises.
Water has now joined terrorism, Kashmir, and border disputes as a major fault line—this time with global implications. With both nations nuclear-armed, any escalation carries catastrophic potential.
International Mediation and Legal Channels
Past disputes were handled through legal channels. The Kishanganga and Baglihar cases were decided through:
- Neutral Expert under World Bank auspices.
- Court of Arbitration, which ruled in 2013 on aspects of water diversion and dam design.
In 2022, the World Bank resumed parallel legal processes after years of deadlock, appointing a Neutral Expert and a Chairman for the Court of Arbitration.
These mechanisms operate independently and are empowered by the treaty.
But this time, the issue is more than design disputes—it’s the suspension of the entire treaty, a precedent with no legal framework from India.
Environmental and Climatic Risks
Beyond diplomacy and legality, the ecological stakes are dire. India’s dam-building spree and Pakistan’s over-reliance on the Indus system have left the basin ecologically vulnerable:
- Glacier melt from climate change is accelerating.
- River ecosystems are degrading.
- Wetlands, biodiversity, and soil health are declining.
- Any disruption to river flow threatens not only food and water security, but the ecological stability of the region.
A Treaty Tested, A Region on Edge
The Indus Waters Treaty, once hailed as a beacon of water diplomacy, is now in deep crisis. India’s decision to suspend the treaty—whether symbolic or substantive—signals a shift from cooperative to coercive hydropolitics.
For Pakistan, the IWT is more than a legal agreement—it’s a lifeline. For India, it’s now a lever of pressure.
Unless both nations return to dialogue, diplomacy, and science-based water management, the next war between India and Pakistan might not be over land or ideology—but over water.
