In response to the Pakistan-engineered Pahalgam terror attack, India was compelled to suspend the implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)—a decision justified, legitimate, timely, and necessary. It signals the end of an era of unreciprocated generosity and marks a new phase of strategic clarity. For too long, India upheld an outdated treaty amid mounting provocations, from cross-border terrorism to environmental threats. The IWT, once a symbol of postcolonial cooperation, needs rethinking due to current geopolitical and ecological challenges.
A Treaty Outpaced by Time
Water, once the preserve of cooperative diplomacy, is increasingly being reframed as a strategic asset. In 1960, India, as the upper riparian, signed the IWT with Pakistan under World Bank mediation—ceding over 80% of the Indus system’s waters to its neighbour. This unprecedented concession endured through wars and hostilities. But while India scrupulously honoured the treaty, even in the face of grave provocations, Pakistan offered no reciprocal restraint. The result is an untenable asymmetry: India abides by the rules; Pakistan violates every other bilateral norm.
A Tale of Two Riparians: India and China
In contrast to India’s restraint, China’s behaviour as an upper riparian offers a stark counterpoint. With no binding river-sharing treaties, Beijing has aggressively dammed the Yarlung Tsangpo (Brahmaputra) and other Himalayan rivers with little transparency or regard for ecological fallout. During critical flood seasons, it has withheld hydrological data, worsening risks downstream.
Last year, it announced the construction of two dams on the Yarlung Tsangpo, just before the river enters the world’s longest and deepest canyon—three times deeper than the Grand Canyon. Projected to cost $137 billion, this will be the world’s largest single infrastructure project, eclipsing even China’s Three Gorges Dam. Located just 30 km from Arunachal Pradesh, it threatens not only water availability but also seasonal flows, sediment transport, and ecosystem integrity. Its dam-building spree is not merely infrastructural—it is geopolitical. Environmental degradation, sediment loss, biodiversity threats, and altered flow regimes are treated as collateral damage.
Strategic Water: From Resource to Lever of Power
This pattern of hydro-hegemony underscores an uncomfortable truth: while India clings to a Cold War-era treaty in the name of legal rectitude, its neighbours exploit water as leverage. The IWT’s continued observance, in this light, becomes less a virtue than a strategic vulnerability. Suspending the treaty is not an act of retaliation—it is an assertion of sovereign equality and environmental responsibility.
Water in Wartime: Lessons from History
History offers ample precedent. From the 1967 Six-Day War to Ukraine’s 2014 blockade of water to Crimea, water has routinely been used as a bargaining chip in conflicts. Iraq’s sabotage of Kuwaiti water systems during the Gulf War is another grim reminder that infrastructure becomes fair game when national interests are threatened. The logic is clear: treaties, no matter how venerable, cannot be immune to changes in the strategic environment.
Law and Legitimacy: India’s Position
International law supports such a recalibration. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), though not signed by India, enshrines principles widely recognized in customary international law. A treaty may be suspended or terminated in the event of a material breach or a fundamental change of circumstances. Pakistan’s continued support for terrorism and its disregard for peacebuilding qualify as such a breach. The environmental and geopolitical shifts driven by climate change and China’s damming projects further strengthen India’s case.
A Path Forward: Conditional Engagement
As and when India reconsiders its decision—after Pakistan’s explicit commitment to extirpate terrorism, including handing over the heads of terror organisations like Hafiz Sayyid, Masood Azhar, and Saifullah—her response must be strategic and measured. A limited, proportionate relaxation of the suspension, such as data sharing, can serve as a diplomatic signal, leaving room for future negotiation.
Simultaneously, India must elevate the conversation to multilateral platforms like the United Nations, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The aim should be to recast the narrative: this is not just a dispute with Pakistan, but a matter of sovereign rights, regional stability, and ecological stewardship.
Towards a New Water Doctrine
Any future renegotiation of the IWT must be conditional on verifiable cessation of cross-border terrorism, reciprocal environmental safeguards, and regional trust-building. The era of unconditional flows must give way to responsible reciprocity.
In a time of hostile borders and shifting climates, India must embrace a doctrine of strategic water management. The Indus Waters Treaty, while historically significant, must be viewed through a contemporary lens.
Crucially, India has not weaponised water. Flows continue, infrastructure remains within permissible design, and treaty compliance persists in form. But the symbolic resonance of the suspension is strong: it warns that even long-standing frameworks are not insulated from behavioural provocations.
The effects are subtle but cumulative. By maximising utilisation of eastern rivers and accelerating hydropower construction, India can reduce the volume of water reaching Pakistan without technical violation. The very predictability of the treaty, once a diplomatic buffer for Pakistan, is now in question.
Whether this acts as deterrence remains uncertain. Islamabad’s entrenched doctrines and reliance on proxies may blunt the impact. Yet, the move inaugurates a doctrine of calibrated fluid pressure—reversible, lawful, and strategic.
India’s suspension of the IWT is not a rupture—it is a rebalancing. It is not an act of aggression—it is a rational, lawful, and increasingly necessary step. Water is no longer just a natural resource; it is a vector of power. And India must now steer its course with wisdom, equity, and sovereign confidence.
scribo ad LX 