The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is the most important agreement that India and Pakistan have ever signed, back in 1960. Today, it is under unprecedented strain as India has declared its intention to abrogate the treaty. This decision unravels on the backdrop of growing tensions and allegations of cross-border terrorism. Taken alone or combined, these factors are deeply wounding the bilateral relationship between the two countries. So the World Bank helped to broker the treaty, which has allowed former Pakistani President Ayub Khan and former Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Since this agreement took effect more than sixty years ago, this compact has managed the allocation of river waters.
Under the IWT, India has access to the waters of three eastern rivers—the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—while Pakistan relies heavily on the western rivers for its agricultural and energy needs. These western rivers, given to Pakistan, have high flow volumes, especially from May to September. As the upper riparian nation, India controls the water flows into Pakistan, creating a precarious balance between cooperation and conflict.
India’s recent announcement has cast this balance into doubt. Earlier today, Indian officials indicated that they will suspend the treaty. They insist that Pakistan needs to do much more by fully ending its facilitation of cross-border terrorism to begin with. Consider Pakistan’s rapid condemnation of this move. They see every change in how water unavoidably flows to them as a signal that their enemy has launched a new offensive.
Historical Context of the Treaty
This treaty emerged on the heels of the end of British colonial domination of the Indian subcontinent in August 1947. The treaty was meant to be a stabilizing mechanism that would allow for the sharing of water resources even under rising tension between India and Pakistan. The IWT allocated the eastern rivers to India and reserved the western rivers for the exclusive use of Pakistan.
The treaty is important because it sets a precedent for collaboration between American and Mexican water ministries by providing a valuable water-sharing agreement. It is a highly effective diplomatic tool between two nuclear-armed adversaries. For years, both countries have negotiated treaty-related issues, including the Standstill Agreement, which lapsed in 1948. Aside from occasional crises, both countries have lived up to the treaty, understanding that it is crucial to overall regional order.
Recent events indicate that this deep-rooted doctrine’s long-standing tradition is about to change. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has previously indicated a willingness to reconsider India’s obligations under the IWT, stating that “blood and water can’t flow together.” PIA / Owais Shazad Remarks like these have sent shockwaves across Pakistan about the potential fate of their water resources.
Implications for Pakistani Agriculture and Energy
Pakistan’s dependence on the waters of the western rivers is deeply ingrained. These rivers play a central role in irrigated agriculture and power production, particularly in the hot summer months when both ag demand and urban ag electric demand peaks. Additionally, those high May-September flows are critical to growing crops and supporting commercial and recreation activities, with ripple effects on economic livelihoods nationwide.
With India’s control over water flow as the upper riparian nation, any attempt to alter this flow could have devastating consequences for Pakistan’s agriculture sector. Experts warn that diverting or restricting water from these rivers could exacerbate food insecurity and economic instability in Pakistan.
Sharif’s office has released extremely forceful statements condemning India’s recent provocations. They assert that “Pakistan vehemently rejects the Indian announcement to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance… Any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan… will be considered as an Act of War and responded with full force.”
Besides agriculture, Pakistan’s energy sector relies largely on hydroelectric power produced from these rivers. Disruptions from impacts on water supply would exacerbate the worsening energy shortages, adding pressure to an already stressed economy.
Legal and Diplomatic Consequences
The unexpected suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty presents important legal questions both about international law and bilateral agreements. As a bilateral treaty with no formal arbiter, the IWT functions on good faith and goodwill. India’s rescindment of the abeyance just last month has already faced immense international criticism.
Our legal scholars at Georgetown University Law Center explain why unilateral, politically motivated actions to suspend a bilateral treaty are grounds for international legal challenge. Khan notes that “in principle, a unilateral suspension of a bilateral treaty can be challenged as a breach of international law.” This claim serves to show the deeply tenuous legal underpinnings on which both countries continue to operate in their relationship.
Experts are sounding the alarm that this is a dangerous new precedent for future negotiations. This concern doesn’t stop at India and Pakistan. It has the potential to affect any other countries with similar water-sharing treaties. Soofi points out that “the word abeyance is not mentioned in the treaty,” indicating potential violations of established legal norms.
As tensions escalate, Pakistan has asserted its right to reassess all bilateral agreements with India in response to perceived threats to its sovereignty. This means including rethinking bilateral commitments such as the Simla Agreement until India stops supporting terrorism and violating Pakistan’s water rights.
