Reassessing the Indus Pact Amid Rising Tensions

On April 22, 2025, the Baisaran meadows turned bloody when the 26 tourists, including foreign nationals, were shot dead by the terrorists in Pahalgam. This terrorist act was seen as the ‘worst civilian massacre in Kashmir in recent memory’. This assault, which claimed the lives of civilians, was not only a reminder of the persistent threat to India’s national security by terrorism but also a test of our diplomatic resolve. In response to this gruesome attack, the government of India took the unprecedented step of keeping the Indus Waters Treaty in Abeyance- a step which marked a significant change in India’s approach towards cross-border terrorism.

The government's firm step in keeping the treaty in abeyance shows its strong resolve against terrorism and sends a firm message that cooperation cannot exist in the shadow of terrorism. This water-sharing pact was signed between India and Pakistan in 1960, brokered by the World Bank after years of negotiation. The need for this treaty arose after the partition of India in 1947, when the six rivers of the Indus river system were divided between India and Pakistan. The horror of the partition still didn’t leave when the issue of water sharing rose tensions between these two nations. The issue was mainly because the headwaters of the Indus and its tributaries lie mostly in India, while the river flows downstream into Pakistan, making Pakistan heavily reliant on water that originates from Indian territory. According to this treaty, the six major rivers of the Indus Basin were divided into eastern rivers and western rivers. India was given the eastern rivers, which included the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. And Pakistan was allocated western rivers, which included the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, although India was permitted limited access to these rivers for non-consumptive needs such as irrigation, hydropower generation, and transport, under strict technical conditions.

Since 1960, the IWT has stood firm in spite of all the hostility from both nations. However, for the past two decades, the treaty has come under increasing strain. In recent years, there have been demands to revisit or revise the treaty, especially in the wake of the terrorist attacks allegedly originating on Pakistani soil. In this context, the recent decision of the government to put the Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance” is a bold move and a significant departure from its previous stance of compliance and restraint. The big question is what is the future of the treaty post India’s decision to keep it in abeyance.

Notably, the treaty does not allow either side to unilaterally stop, withdraw from, or terminate the agreement, even while it includes all procedures for settling disagreements, problems, and disputes. Only a fully ratified agreement between the two countries may amend or terminate the treaty, as stated in its Final Provisions.

In international law, the word “suspension” is commonly used instead of “abeyance”. Since the IWT does not mention suspension, states may refer to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) or Customary International Law (CIL) for their rights. However, VCLT came in 1980, and IWT was signed in 1960. Thus, VCLT cannot be applied to IWT. However, multiple provisions continue to apply as CIL. Notwithstanding, Article 60, according to the ICJ, is reflective of CIL, which allows the suspension and termination of a treaty in case of a material breach. India ultimately is left with one recourse, which is Article 62, which talks about a Fundamental change in circumstances(FCC). In its letter to Pakistan, the reason given by India to hold IWT in abeyance is FCC.

In light of the horrifying Pahalgam terror assault, India's decision to put the Indus Waters Treaty on hold is a daring and unusual change in its geopolitical position. Although the IWT has traditionally been seen as a symbol of collaboration in times of crisis, India has been compelled to reevaluate its responsibilities due to changing security conditions and ongoing cross-border terrorism. India's action is a diplomatic message that peaceful engagement cannot continue in the face of unbridled hostility, even though international law provides few options for unilateral suspension, particularly under Article 62's stringent requirements for Fundamental Change in Circumstances. This moment could determine the future of Indo-Pak ties and the viability of water diplomacy in conflict-prone areas as the region struggles with intricate hydro-political and security issues.