WATER POLITICS

When the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed in 1960, it was an act of extraordinary generosity on India’s part. Despite being the upper riparian state, India reserved for Pakistan over 80% of the Indus Basin waters. Almost 65 years later, IWT remains the world’s most generous water-sharing treaty.

The treaty was a bet on peace — on the hope that India’s water largesse would help usher in subcontinental stability and collaboration. Pakistan, however, has repaid India’s generosity not with gratitude, but with grenades and guns.

From the 2001 attack on Parliament to the 2008 horrific Mumbai massacre, and from the 2016 Uri raid to the 2019 Pulwama bombing — the pattern of Pakistan-scripted terrorism has been unmistakable. The pattern underscores a strategic doctrine of asymmetric warfare, relying on terrorist proxies. And yet, even as Pakistan kept on repaying water munificence with blood, India continued to honour the treaty.

But now the national anger over the latest terrorist massacre in Pahalgam, where Hindu tourists were singled out and slaughtered, has compelled Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take a legal step — putting the IWT “in abeyance”. This is not about water alone. It is about principle, sovereignty and the right to protect one’s people. International law is clear: when a treaty’s foundational conditions collapse — or when one party persistently breaches it — the other party has the right to suspend or withdraw.

A country that repeatedly enables attacks on innocent civilians should forfeit the benefits of a legal arrangement designed for peaceful cooperation. The IWT is not a river-sharing agreement in isolation; it is a mechanism of trust, and trust has been systemically dismantled.

Moreover, the world is not unfamiliar with treaty withdrawals. The US unilaterally exited the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in 2002 and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 2019 — citing national security threats both times. Sovereign states are entitled to defend themselves when cooperation becomes a cover for aggression. Why should India be any different?

Even within the bounds of the IWT, Pakistan has not acted in good faith. In fact, it has weaponized the IWT itself, abusing the treaty’s mechanisms to delay or sabotage Indian infrastructure projects and prevent India from utilising its legitimate share of the waters by repeatedly escalating minor engineering issues to international arbitration or adjudication. And still, India waited.

Now, India is signalling that endless patience should not be mistaken for weakness. Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) permits a state to suspend or withdraw from a treaty in the event of a material breach by the other party. International law also provides for a fundamental change in circumstances as a valid reason for treaty withdrawal, as laid out in Article 62 of the VCLT. India is not a party but the VCLT is reflective of customary international law.

However, India, despite citing both a fundamental change of circumstances and Pakistan’s material breach, has chosen neither to suspend nor withdraw from the IWT, deciding instead to place the treaty “in abeyance”, a term not formally defined in international law. The tentative step may suggest that the govt is seeking to deliver a strategic warning to compel behaviour change without burning diplomatic bridges just yet.

India has neither the intent nor the hydro-infrastructure to disrupt downstream flows. Its adversary is the Pakistani deep state, not the Pakistani people. India has thus made clear it will act responsibly, ensuring no humanitarian crisis is triggered.

Contrast India’s restraint and caution with China’s aggressive unilateralism. China has refused to negotiate a water-sharing treaty with any of its downstream neighbours. On the Brahmaputra, it is building a super-dam, the largest ever conceived, near the seismically active border with India, potentially creating a ticking water bomb.

Although India dwarfs Pakistan in terms of economic output, military spending and other material measures, successive Indian governments have allowed Pakistan to gore India with impunity by not pursuing a consistent Pakistan policy. Even today, after the Pakistani army chief’s recent call for civilizational war with India implied mortal combat, some policy-makers believe that India can compel a neighbour consumed by hatred to change behaviour. It is thus no wonder that — the latest horrific massacre notwithstanding — India appears loath to exit a treaty that hangs like the proverbial albatross from its neck.

India should offer an alternative water-sharing framework that is conditional on peace and verifiable conduct. The IWT model, based on unconditional trust, with India left to bear the burdens without any benefits, has failed.

More fundamentally, without India mustering the political will to impose sustained and multifaceted costs, Pakistan will remain Ground Zero for the international terrorist threat. India’s restraint has been historic. Now, history demands resolve.