In the aftermath of a heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam, India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty marks a pivotal shift in regional geopolitics and counter-terrorism strategy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
JAMMU AND KASHMIR: The gruesome Pahalgam terrorist attack on April 22, 2025, which targeted Hindu pilgrims and forced them to recite the Islamic Kalma before execution, has sent shockwaves throughout the Indian subcontinent. In a historic and unprecedented diplomatic retaliation, India has responded by suspending its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan.
This strategic move, seen by many as a turning point in India’s counter-terrorism diplomacy, has wide-reaching implications—not only for India-Pakistan relations but also for regional energy security, agriculture, and peace.
This article explores the legal, diplomatic, environmental, and humanitarian dimensions of India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. It further examines how this bold move, prompted by an act of religiously motivated terror, could trigger a severe energy and food crisis in Pakistan, while potentially redrawing the contours of water diplomacy in South Asia.
What Is the Indus Waters Treaty?
Signed in 1960 under the aegis of the World Bank, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is one of the most successful and enduring water-sharing agreements in the world. The treaty divides the Indus river system between India and Pakistan:
- Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) – allocated to India.
- Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) – allocated to Pakistan, with India retaining limited rights for non-consumptive use (e.g., irrigation, hydroelectricity, navigation).
India, despite being the upper riparian state, has honored this treaty even during wars and hostile phases in bilateral ties. The IWT has survived conflicts in 1965, 1971, the Kargil war in 1999, and the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Its suspension now signals India’s growing willingness to weaponize water as a counter-terrorism measure.
Why Did India Suspend the Treaty Now?
The Pahalgam terrorist attack, in which Hindu pilgrims were executed for refusing to renounce their faith, marks a severe escalation in religiously targeted terrorism. Intelligence sources suggest that the perpetrators received logistical and ideological support from Pakistan-based terror groups.
In response, India convened an emergency session of the National Security Council and decided to freeze all Indus Waters Commission talks, halt the data-sharing obligations under the treaty, and suspend technical cooperation on projects related to Pakistan’s river usage. Though not an outright abrogation, this amounts to a functional suspension of the treaty.
India cited the following justifications:
- National Security: Terror groups operating from Pakistani soil exploit India’s restraint. Suspending the IWT is a non-military punitive measure that hits Pakistan where it hurts most — its lifeline of water and agriculture.
- International Law: India argues that state-sponsored terrorism constitutes a “material breach” under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, allowing suspension.
- Moral Responsibility: After the Pahalgam attack, continuing water cooperation would amount to condoning acts of religious terror, particularly those targeting minorities.
Potential Impact on Pakistan
1. Agricultural Collapse
Pakistan’s agriculture is heavily dependent on the Indus river system, with about 90% of its food production linked to irrigation from the Indus and its tributaries.
- Punjab and Sindh, Pakistan’s main food-producing regions, rely on the flow of the Chenab and Jhelum—rivers governed under the western bloc of the IWT.
- A significant reduction in water flow due to India’s damming or diversion projects could lead to:
- Crop failures
- Food inflation
- Rural unemployment
- Farmer suicides
Even minor disruptions in water flow can have catastrophic cascading effects, especially during the Rabi (winter cropping) season.
2. Hydropower Crisis
Pakistan’s Tarbela and Mangla dams, fed by the Indus and Jhelum rivers respectively, generate over 7,000 MW of hydroelectricity. Reduced river flow would:
- Lower power generation capacity.
- Increase load-shedding and power outages.
- Force reliance on costlier thermal and imported LNG-based power.
- Exacerbate the country’s existing energy crisis, raising the cost of living.
3. Urban Water Shortages
Cities like Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad, and Karachi indirectly depend on river-based water for drinking and sanitation. A decrease in flow or quality of water could trigger urban health emergencies, especially during summer months when demand peaks.
4. Internal Political Instability
Water insecurity often becomes a trigger for civil unrest. Pakistan’s provinces—particularly Sindh and Balochistan—have long-standing grievances about water distribution. A crisis caused by reduced inflow from India could:
- Exacerbate inter-provincial disputes.
- Destabilize the federal structure.
- Undermine the civilian government’s credibility, especially if perceived as incapable of defending national interests.
Legal Validity of India’s Move
Though the IWT is a binding bilateral agreement, India has room for maneuver under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention, which allows for suspension or withdrawal from treaties under the “doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances.”
India can argue that:
- Cross-border terrorism constitutes a violation of good faith essential to any treaty.
- The threat to national security warrants re-evaluation of international obligations.
Further, India is not abrogating the treaty but suspending cooperation mechanisms—a legal grey area that keeps doors open for future diplomatic recalibration.
Global Reaction
The move has divided global opinion:
- United States: Expressed concern but acknowledged India’s right to defend itself.
- China: Cautioned restraint, given its investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
- UNESCO and UN Water: Emphasized the need for peaceful water sharing but avoided direct criticism.
- World Bank, a guarantor of the treaty, has maintained a neutral stance, urging dialogue.
Pakistan’s Response
Pakistan has termed India’s action a “water war” and lodged protests at the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the World Bank. Islamabad is considering:
- Mobilizing OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) for diplomatic pressure.
- Accelerating construction of new dams (Dasu, Diamer-Bhasha).
- Seeking Chinese diplomatic and technical assistance.
- Exploring possibilities of retaliatory action in Kashmir diplomatically and via proxy groups.
Domestic Response in India
India’s public and political reaction has been largely supportive. Even opposition parties, barring some regional outfits, have stood behind the government’s move. Civil society groups, especially in Jammu and Punjab, hailed the suspension as “long overdue”.
Some commentators, however, warned that weaponizing water could backfire by:
- Alienating global opinion.
- Damaging India’s image as a responsible power.
- Inviting indirect escalation through Pakistan-based terror outfits.
The Kashmir Factor
The suspension of the IWT sends a message that terror in Kashmir will have costs beyond the valley. It links Pakistan’s covert operations in Kashmir with direct consequences to its survival metrics—water and food.
This shift in strategy may:
- Deter Pakistan from sponsoring terrorism in the long run.
- Provide India more leverage in future dialogues on Kashmir and terrorism.
- Encourage internal dissent within Pakistan against groups that provoke Indian retaliation.
India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty cooperation is a bold diplomatic gambit. However, it must be part of a calibrated long-term strategy, not an isolated reaction. Going forward:
- India must continue to invest in dam and hydropower infrastructure to maximize its share of water legally allowed under the IWT.
- It should build international consensus around the idea that terrorism nullifies cooperative obligations.
- Diplomatic channels with Pakistan should remain open for renegotiation, especially if tangible action is taken against terror groups.
The Pahalgam attack was not just a barbaric act of terror; it was a spiritual and psychological assault on India’s pluralistic fabric. By targeting Hindu pilgrims and forcing them to recite Islamic verses under the threat of death, terrorists crossed a line that India could no longer ignore.
India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty marks a watershed moment in its foreign policy and national security doctrine. It redefines how democracies can respond to terrorism using non-military tools—water diplomacy, economic chokeholds, and international law.
While Pakistan may try to weather the storm through alliances and protests, it will have to grapple with the harsh reality of water dependency. As India recalibrates its strategic posture in South Asia, the message is loud and clear: actions have consequences, and terror will be met with tectonic shifts—not just in rhetoric, but in rivers.
READ TREATY:
READ MORE REPORTS ON PAHALGAM ATTACK
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
