Qamar Bashir
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960 between India, Pakistan, and the World Bank, is considered one of the most successful and resilient international water-sharing agreements. Even during wars and border skirmishes, the Treaty has endured. However, following the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, the Indian administration has suggested that it may suspend or reconsider its obligations under the Treaty. Such statements, however, are legally unsound, technically unfeasible, and morally indefensible.
The Treaty is explicit in its construction: under Article XII, it shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded between the two Governments. Unilateral suspension is not permitted. Furthermore, there is no national security exception or terrorism-related clause that would allow India to unilaterally withdraw. No matter how severe political tensions or security concerns are, neither side has the legal right to suspend the Treaty on its own accord. India would breach international law, the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), and the United Nations Charter if it acted unilaterally.
Technically, under the Treaty, Pakistan is entitled to unrestricted use of the Western Rivers, namely the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. India is allowed limited non-consumptive uses, including hydropower generation, but it cannot store or divert significant quantities.
India’s existing infrastructure only allows it to store about 3.6 million acre-feet of water from the Western Rivers, which is negligible compared to the annual flow of approximately 135 million acre-feet. Major projects like the Baglihar Dam and Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project are run-of-the-river schemes with minimal storage capacity. Seasonal floods and heavy monsoon rains would easily overwhelm India’s
limited reservoirs, causing internal flooding if the water were obstructed. Therefore, under current circumstances, India lacks both the technical infrastructure and the legal right to divert or control the flow meaningfully.
Even with accelerated dam-building projects, India would require decades to establish the necessary infrastructure to capture and divert the Western Rivers’ flow substantially.
Experts suggest a timeline of fifteen to twenty years if India aggressively constructs reservoirs, dams, and diversionary canals, all of which would still breach the Treaty.
Moreover, achieving complete control would demand not only extraordinary engineering feats but also a blatant and open defiance of international norms, inviting severe diplomatic consequences and international isolation.
If India sets a precedent of suspending a bilateral water-sharing treaty citing terrorism, it would also dangerously expose itself to retaliation. China, which controls the headwaters of the Brahmaputra River, could similarly argue national security grounds and build mega-dams to divert the flow away from India’s northeastern states. Such a move would have catastrophic consequences for Indian agriculture, drinking water supplies, and hydroelectric generation in states like Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Thus, any unilateral move to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty would not only undermine India’s credibility
but could also backfire catastrophically in other critical water-sharing disputes.
The recent attempt to link a localized terrorist incident in Pahalgam to suspending the
Treaty is fundamentally illogical. The Indus Waters Treaty concerns the sharing and
management of water resources; it has no provision linking it to security issues or
counterterrorism measures. Punishing millions of innocent civilians in Pakistan, who
have no involvement in terrorist activities, by cutting off their access to essential water
supplies would constitute collective punishment, a violation of international humanitarian
law, and an act of aggression. The connection drawn between terrorism and water rights
is not only irrational but represents a deeply unethical approach to international
diplomacy.
In addition to being morally indefensible, India's unilateral suspension of the Treaty
would be unlawful. Article XII of the Treaty clearly states that it can only be altered or
terminated through mutual agreement by the two states, through a duly ratified treaty.
Under international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
unilateral withdrawal from a treaty is permitted only in cases of a material breach of the
treaty's very obligations. A terrorist incident, however tragic, does not relate to the water-
sharing arrangements specified in the Treaty and thus does not qualify as a material
breach.
Pakistan, faced with such a threat, has several avenues to respond effectively. It can
invoke the dispute resolution mechanism under Article IX, escalating the matter from the
Permanent Indus Commission to a Neutral Expert or a Court of Arbitration if necessary.
Pakistan can also approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that India's
actions constitute a violation of international law. Simultaneously, Pakistan can bring the
matter before the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the UN Charter,
highlighting how India's threat endangers international peace and security.
Diplomatically, Pakistan can mobilize international opinion by engaging the World Bank,
the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union, China, Turkey,
Malaysia, and others to condemn India's actions. It can also seek economic and trade
measures against India if it persists with its threats.
The United Nations and international institutions have a duty to act in such situations.
Persistent violation of international obligations, such as those under the Indus Waters
Treaty, can trigger action under Article 6 of the UN Charter, which allows for expulsion
of a member state. Furthermore, breaching humanitarian treaties constitutes an
internationally wrongful act under the International Law Commission's Articles on State
Responsibility, inviting international sanctions. The World Bank, as a guarantor of the
Treaty, also has a responsibility to publicly reaffirm the Treaty’s validity and pressure
India to comply with its obligations.
At this sensitive juncture, Pakistan must avoid matching India's inflammatory rhetoric.
Responding with restraint and maintaining a commitment to peace will strengthen
Pakistan’s moral and diplomatic standing. Upholding the principles of international law
and peaceful dispute resolution will not only protect Pakistan's vital water interests but
also isolate India diplomatically if it persists in its unlawful actions. Pakistan must
demonstrate that it seeks to protect civilians on both sides of the border from the
devastating consequences of a water conflict.
By staying true to the rule of law and refraining from retaliatory measures that harm
innocents, Pakistan can effectively turn India’s aggression into a diplomatic liability for
New Delhi. Water is a resource for life, not a weapon of war. Any attempt to weaponize
it must be condemned unequivocally by the global community. The Indus Waters Treaty
remains a symbol of hope and resilience; undermining it for political expediency would
be an unforgivable betrayal of the millions who depend on these rivers for their survival.
India’s threats to suspend or sabotage the Indus Waters Treaty are not only legally and
technically hollow but also morally reckless. Terrorism, however deplorable, does not
justify collective punishment or the violation of binding international agreements. If India
proceeds down this path, it risks diplomatic isolation, legal censure, and strategic
backfire. Pakistan must remain steadfast in its commitment to international norms, while
vigorously pursuing legal and diplomatic channels to safeguard its rights. The world must
recognize that water is a resource for life, not a weapon of war. Any attempt to
weaponize it should be condemned unequivocally. Peace, legality, and diplomacy must
prevail over impulsive vengeance.
