Indus River in Skardu turns blue during Autumn and looks so beautiful.
India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) “in abeyance” marks a disturbing departure from one of South Asia’s most enduring peace mechanisms. By unilaterally suspending the landmark agreement with Pakistan—without international consultation or legal process—New Delhi has crossed a dangerous threshold. This is not merely a diplomatic incident or a routine policy shift. It is a conscious move to weaponize water, one of the most vital resources for survival, and a grave provocation that threatens the peace and stability of an already fragile region.
The IWT, brokered in 1960 by the World Bank, has long been regarded as a rare success story in the otherwise volatile India-Pakistan relationship. Despite three wars and countless skirmishes, the treaty endured. It provided a clear division of the Indus River system’s waters—allocating the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan.
For Pakistan, a downstream state with agriculture, energy, and food security heavily dependent on these water flows, the treaty has been a lifeline. Its abrogation or suspension, especially in the absence of any alternate mechanism or arbitration, is akin to cutting off a nation’s oxygen. This is not about politics—it is about survival.
India has frequently projected itself as a responsible rising power committed to a rules-based international order. Yet, its action on the Indus Waters Treaty betrays that image. Article XII of the IWT clearly stipulates that neither party can unilaterally modify or suspend the treaty. India’s decision flies in the face of this clause and constitutes a blatant violation of international law.
This is not the first time India has shown selective adherence to international norms. Its refusal to honor WTO rulings, frequent dismissals of human rights reports, and unilateral actions in Kashmir all point toward a troubling trend: India increasingly seeks global prestige without global accountability. By discarding the IWT unilaterally, India signals to the world that treaties are optional and can be violated at will when political convenience demands it. This is a dangerous precedent that threatens not just Pakistan but the entire architecture of international diplomacy.
The significance of this breach transcends the subcontinent. Countries sharing transboundary rivers—from Central Asia to Africa to Latin America—depend on treaties and mutual understanding to manage water disputes. India’s suspension of the IWT sends a chilling message: even long-standing, UN-registered agreements can be tossed aside if geopolitics demands it.
China, for instance, is likely watching closely. If India can renege on its water-sharing commitments with Pakistan, what prevents China from using similar tactics in its riparian disputes with India itself, such as over the Brahmaputra? Moreover, water scarcity is a growing concern worldwide. As climate change intensifies droughts and alters river flows, cross-border water agreements will become even more essential. India’s move may inspire other countries to follow suit—unleashing a cascade of treaty collapses and potential conflicts.
What makes India’s decision even more alarming is the calculated nature of the move. It did not occur in a vacuum. It comes at a time when bilateral relations are tense, Kashmir remains a flashpoint, and Indian elections are looming. Water, once seen as a shared resource, is now being wielded as a geopolitical tool to pressure Pakistan.
This is nothing short of water weaponization—a deeply unethical and provocative tactic that endangers millions. According to experts, nearly 80% of Pakistan’s population relies on the Indus basin for drinking water, agriculture, and energy. Disrupting these flows could lead to massive displacements, food insecurity, economic collapse, and even armed confrontation.
The global silence on this issue is deafening. For decades, the IWT was held up as a shining example of conflict resolution and international mediation. Its unraveling should ring alarm bells in every diplomatic and legal institution around the world. The World Bank, as a broker and guarantor of the treaty, must step in and assert its role. So must the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and regional organizations like SAARC. Treaties cannot be allowed to become disposable instruments of national will. If India is not held accountable, what message does that send to other nations tempted to renege on their obligations?
Pakistan has consistently upheld its end of the Indus Waters Treaty. Despite facing floods, droughts, and demographic pressure, it has never threatened to weaponize the agreement. It has always called for peaceful resolution and dialogue. The burden is now on India to return to the negotiating table and recommit to the principles of fairness, responsibility, and peace. India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty is a test—not just of its own moral compass, but of the global community’s commitment to justice and law. Treaties are the lifeblood of international relations. They are not meant to be held hostage to political whims.
0 Comments
LEAVE A COMMENT
Your email address will not be published