India's Indus Water Treaty Suspension: A Legal Response to Security Threats

The India-Pakistan relationship has long been fraught with tension, rooted in historical, political, and territorial disputes. Among the many flashpoints, the sharing of water resources under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) stands out as a critical legal and diplomatic issue. Signed in 1960, the IWT governs the use of the Indus River and its tributaries, a lifeline for millions in both nations. As water scarcity intensifies and geopolitical tensions persist, disputes over the treaty have escalated, raising questions about its resilience and the legal mechanisms that sustain it. This blog explores the role of Indus Water Treaty Suspension in the India-Pakistan crisis, its legal framework, current challenges, and its implications for bilateral relations, with a special focus for legal scholars and practitioners.

| Indus Water Treaty Suspension |

Background of the India-Pakistan Crisis

The India-Pakistan crisis is a complex web of conflicts, with roots in the 1947 partition that created two independent nations. The dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, a region through which the Indus and its tributaries flow, has been a persistent source of friction, fuelling wars, insurgencies, and diplomatic standoffs. Water, as a shared resource, has become a critical dimension of this crisis. The Indus River system, originating in the Himalayas, supports agriculture, industry, and livelihoods in both countries, making its equitable distribution a matter of national security.

In recent years, tensions have flared over India’s construction of hydroelectric projects on rivers allocated to Pakistan under the IWT, such as the Kishanganga and Ratle projects. Pakistan has raised objections, citing violations of the treaty’s provisions, while India maintains that its actions are permissible. These disputes, set against a backdrop of cross-border terrorism allegations and military skirmishes, underscore the intersection of water rights, international law, and geopolitics.

The Indus Water Treaty: A Legal Cornerstone

The Indus Water Treaty, brokered by the World Bank and signed on September 19, 1960, is a landmark agreement in international water law. It allocates the use of the Indus River system’s six major rivers between India and Pakistan. The treaty divides the rivers into two groups:

• Eastern Rivers (Sutlej, Beas, Ravi): Allocated to India for unrestricted use.

  
  

• Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab): Allocated primarily to Pakistan, with India permitted limited use for domestic purposes, agriculture, and non-consumptive hydroelectric power generation.

Key provisions of the IWT include:

• Water Allocation: Pakistan receives approximately 80% of the Indus system’s water, reflecting its greater dependence on these rivers for irrigation.

  
  

• Hydroelectric Projects: India may construct run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, subject to design and operational restrictions to ensure minimal disruption to Pakistan’s water flow.

  
  

• Dispute Resolution: The treaty establishes a Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) for routine cooperation and a tiered dispute resolution mechanism, including negotiation, neutral expert intervention, and arbitration through a Court of Arbitration.

  
  

• Data Sharing: Both nations are required to exchange data on river flows and project plans to ensure transparency.

The IWT is often hailed as a model of cooperation, having survived three wars and numerous diplomatic crises. Its legal framework, grounded in principles of equitable utilization and mutual benefit, reflects the influence of customary international law on transboundary watercourses, later codified in the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention.

Current Disputes and Legal Challenges

Despite its durability, the IWT faces significant challenges in the contemporary context. The most contentious issue is India’s construction of hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers. Pakistan has repeatedly accused India of violating the treaty by designing projects that alter river flows, particularly during the lean season. Two projects have been at the forefront of recent disputes:

• Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project: Commissioned in 2018, this project on the Jhelum River’s tributary diverted water to generate power. Pakistan argued that it reduced water availability downstream, violating the IWT. The dispute was referred to a neutral expert in 2010 and later to arbitration, with the Court of Arbitration ruling in 2013 that India’s project was permissible but required adjustments to ensure minimum downstream flow.

• Ratle Hydroelectric Project: Located on the Chenab River, this project has faced similar objections from Pakistan, which claims that its design could manipulate water flows. In 2023, Pakistan requested World Bank intervention, invoking both a neutral expert and arbitration simultaneously, a move India criticized as procedurally flawed.

These disputes highlight several legal complexities:

• Interpretation of Treaty Provisions: The IWT’s technical annexures, which govern project design, are subject to differing interpretations. Pakistan seeks stricter compliance, while India emphasizes its right to develop hydropower within treaty limits.

  
  

• Parallel Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: The simultaneous invocation of a neutral expert and arbitration in the Ratle dispute has raised questions about the IWT’s dispute resolution framework. The World Bank, as a facilitator, has struggled to reconcile these parallel processes, risking delays and legal uncertainty.

  
  

• Environmental and Climate Factors: Climate change and glacial melting have altered river flows, complicating the treaty’s assumptions about water availability. Neither party has formally addressed how environmental changes impact the IWT’s legal obligations.

• India’s occasional threats to reconsider the IWT, particularly in response to cross-border terrorism, add a political dimension to these legal disputes. In 2016, following a terrorist attack in Uri, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi remarked that “blood and water cannot flow together,” signalling a potential review of the treaty. While no formal abrogation has occurred, such rhetoric underscores the fragility of the agreement.

Implications for Bilateral Relations

The IWT disputes are not merely technical; they have profound implications for India-Pakistan relations and regional stability. Water is a highly emotive issue, and perceived violations of the treaty can inflame public sentiment in both countries. In Pakistan, where agriculture accounts for a significant portion of the economy, any reduction in water flow is seen as an existential threat. In India, hydropower development is critical for energy security and economic growth, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir.

The legal battles over the IWT also reflect broader mistrust. Pakistan’s concerns about India’s upstream control over the Western Rivers are compounded by fears of strategic manipulation, such as deliberate flooding or water withholding during conflicts. India, conversely, views Pakistan’s objections as attempts to obstruct legitimate development and internationalize bilateral issues.

The involvement of third parties, such as the World Bank, adds another layer of complexity. While the Bank’s role as a neutral facilitator has historically been effective, its inability to prevent procedural disputes risks undermining confidence in the IWT’s mechanisms. Moreover, the absence of a bilateral framework to address emerging challenges, such as climate change, limits the treaty’s adaptability.

Conclusion

The Indus Water Treaty remains a remarkable achievement in international law, providing a framework for cooperation amid one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. However, its success has been tested by India’s unprecedented decision on April 23, 2025, to suspend the treaty following a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 people. Citing Pakistan’s alleged support for cross-border terrorism, India announced that the IWT would be held “in abeyance” with immediate effect, halting obligations such as data sharing and restrictions on hydroelectric project operations. This move, described by Pakistan as an “act of war,” marks a significant escalation, threatening the treaty’s cooperative framework and Pakistan’s water-dependent agriculture, which relies on the Western Rivers for 80% of its irrigation needs.

The suspension raises critical legal questions, as the IWT lacks a provision for unilateral suspension or termination, requiring mutual consent for any modification. India’s invocation of “fundamental change of circumstances” under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is contentious, given precedents like the 1984 International Court of Justice ruling against unilateral treaty abandonment. Moreover, India’s failure to formally notify the World Bank, a key mediator, underscores the procedural irregularities of this action.

As global water scarcity intensifies, the IWT’s relevance persists, but its future depends on addressing India’s legitimate grievances. While the suspension offers short-term leverage, India remains open to dialogue, provided Pakistan takes verifiable steps to curb terrorism. Legal and technical cooperation, including joint climate adaptation strategies, could rebuild trust, but only if mutual security concerns are addressed. The IWT’s legacy as a bridge across divides endures, contingent on both nations recognizing water as a shared resource rather than a geopolitical tool.