COLOMBO
For more than six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) stood as one of the most
resilient examples of international cooperation. Signed in 1960 under the auspices of the
World Bank, the treaty survived wars, military crises, and prolonged diplomatic freezes
between India and Pakistan. Its success rested on a clear principle: the management of
shared rivers would remain insulated from political and security disputes.
India’s unilateral decision in April 2025 to place the treaty “in abeyance” represents a
decisive break from this tradition. The move not only destabilized relations in South Asia
but also sent a troubling signal to a world in which nearly 40 percent of the global
population depends on rivers that cross international borders. At a time of accelerating
climate stress and water scarcity, bypassing established treaty mechanisms risks
normalizing the weaponization of water and weakening international law.
A Treaty Designed to Withstand Conflict
The Indus Waters Treaty emerged from the instability following the 1947 partition of
British India, when fears of a “water war” loomed large. The treaty divided the Indus
Basin’s six rivers, granting India control over the eastern rivers while allocating the
western rivers to Pakistan, with India retaining limited non-consumptive rights.
More importantly, the agreement established durable institutional safeguards. The
Permanent Indus Commission enabled regular technical cooperation, while a multi-tiered
dispute-resolution process—culminating in neutral experts or arbitration—provided
structured avenues for resolving disagreements.
This design proved remarkably robust. Even during the wars of 1965, 1971, and the 1999
Kargil conflict, treaty mechanisms continued to function. The treaty was widely regarded
as a “firewall,” ensuring that water security would not become collateral damage in
political or military confrontation.
From Security Crisis to Hydrological Risk
That firewall collapsed following the April 2025 attack in Pahalgam, in
Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 tourists. India attributed the
attack to Pakistan-based militant groups and, within a day, announced that the Indus Waters
Treaty would be held in abeyance until Pakistan met unspecified security conditions.
The announcement triggered rapid escalation. Diplomatic ties froze, borders closed, and in
early May Indian missile strikes caused civilian casualties before a United States–brokered
ceasefire halted further hostilities. Yet while the immediate military crisis subsided, the
suspension of the treaty remained in place.
This decision transformed a short-term security crisis into a long-term hydrological risk.
Technical cooperation, advance notifications, and data sharing—essential for downstream
water management—were disrupted, leaving millions vulnerable to uncertainty in river
flows.
Abeyance and the Limits of International Law
The legal basis for suspending the treaty is deeply contested. The Indus Waters Treaty
contains no provision allowing unilateral suspension. Article XII explicitly states that
modification or termination requires a new treaty ratified by both parties.
International law reinforces this position. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties does not recognize “abeyance” as a lawful status. In June 2025, the Permanent
Court of Arbitration confirmed that India’s declaration did not limit the court’s jurisdiction
and that the treaty remained legally binding.
India has sought to justify its action by invoking the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus, which
permits withdrawal from a treaty only when unforeseen and fundamental changes radically
transform treaty obligations. However, this threshold is exceptionally high. Population
growth, rising water demand, and security volatility were foreseeable and present at the
time the treaty was signed.
Countermeasures and Human Rights Obligations
Beyond legal arguments lies a profound ethical concern: the human cost of disrupting
transboundary water flows. In late 2025, UN Special Rapporteurs warned that
countermeasures do not absolve states of their human rights obligations.
International law requires that countermeasures be temporary, proportionate, and
reversible, and that they must not impair fundamental rights, including the rights to life,
food, health, and water. Any manipulation of river flows or withholding of hydrological
data risks violating these obligations.
A Global Rise in Water-Related Conflict
The Indus crisis reflects a broader trend. Between 2022 and 2026, incidents of
water-related violence nearly doubled worldwide. Water infrastructure has increasingly
become a target in armed conflicts, while disputes over access and allocation have
intensified under climate stress.
With more than 150 UN member states sharing transboundary rivers, the erosion of legal
norms in one prominent treaty risks encouraging unilateral behavior elsewhere.
Conclusion
The unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty marks a watershed moment in
international law. By bypassing established dispute-resolution mechanisms, India has
challenged the principle that treaties must be honored even during political crises.
The implications extend far beyond South Asia. In an era of rising water scarcity and
conflict, undermining one of the world’s most successful transboundary agreements risks
normalizing a future in which rivers become instruments of power rather than foundations
of cooperation.
