#364: Indus Water Treaty & a year of Op Sindoor
You need to read this for UPSC!
For decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was considered one of the few things India and Pakistan somehow managed to keep functioning despite wars, terror attacks, and diplomatic collapse.
Three wars happened.
Kargil happened.
Pulwama happened.
And still, the treaty survived.
That’s what made India’s decision in April last year significant.
India announced that it was keeping the treaty “in abeyance.”
Not terminated.
Not withdrawn.
Just… suspended operationally.
And since then, both countries have been trying to shape the narrative internationally.
First: What exactly is the Indus Waters Treaty?
The treaty was signed in 1960, with the World Bank acting as a broker between India and Pakistan.
It divided the six rivers of the Indus system into two groups.
Eastern Rivers — India gets primary control
Ravi
Beas
Sutlej
Western Rivers — Pakistan gets primary usage rights
Indus
Jhelum
Chenab
Even though these western rivers flow through India first, Pakistan received major usage rights over them.
India was allowed:
limited irrigation,
hydropower generation,
and some non-consumptive uses.
At that time, this arrangement was considered necessary because Pakistan’s agriculture depended heavily on these rivers.
Then why is India unhappy now?
India’s argument is simple:
The treaty was designed for a very different era.
According to India:
climate realities have changed,
water demands have increased,
and technological possibilities are different now.
But India’s frustration is not just environmental.
It is also procedural.
The big issue: dispute resolution
The treaty created a very layered dispute settlement mechanism.
Depending on the nature of disagreement:
technical questions go to Neutral Experts,
legal disputes can go to a Court of Arbitration.
And this is where things became messy.
Pakistan’s approach: internationalise the issue
Whenever India started major hydropower projects on western rivers, Pakistan raised objections.
Projects like:
Kishanganga
Ratle
became major points of dispute.
Pakistan repeatedly approached:
international forums,
arbitration mechanisms,
and legal bodies created under the treaty framework.
India increasingly felt that:
Pakistan was using the treaty’s legal mechanisms to slow down infrastructure development.
Especially hydroelectric projects.
Because even small delays in such projects increase:
cost,
uncertainty,
and diplomatic pressure.
India’s main objection
India argues that:
the treaty does not allow parallel proceedings.
Meaning:
one issue should not simultaneously go to
a Neutral Expert,
and a Court of Arbitration.
India believes Pakistan pushed for overlapping legal processes, creating procedural confusion.
And this eventually became one of the reasons behind India’s decision to suspend participation in parts of the treaty framework.
So what does “in abeyance” actually mean?
This is important.
India has not formally withdrawn from the treaty.
Instead, it has:
paused certain cooperative engagements,
reduced participation in some procedural mechanisms,
and signaled that the treaty needs renegotiation.
Legally and diplomatically, this creates ambiguity.
Because the treaty still technically exists.
But trust between both sides has weakened significantly.
Why Pakistan is worried
Pakistan is the downstream state.
Its irrigation system is deeply dependent on Indus basin waters.
In fact, a large portion of Pakistan’s agriculture relies on:
Indus,
Jhelum,
Chenab flows.
That’s why even symbolic changes in the treaty framework create anxiety in Pakistan.
From Pakistan’s perspective:
weakening the treaty could create long-term water insecurity.
And water insecurity in South Asia is not just an environmental issue.
It quickly becomes:
economic,
political,
and strategic.
India’s larger strategy now
Interestingly, India’s response has not been only diplomatic.
It has also become infrastructural.
India is focusing more aggressively on:
completing hydropower projects,
improving water storage,
and maximising usage of water allocated under the treaty itself.
For years, India was often accused domestically of:
not fully utilising even the rights it already had under the treaty.
That mindset seems to be changing now.
The hidden geopolitical layer
This issue is no longer just about rivers.
It is connected to:
terrorism,
bilateral relations,
strategic leverage,
and regional power politics.
India increasingly argues that:
cooperation cannot continue normally while cross-border terrorism persists.
Pakistan, meanwhile, frames the issue internationally as:
water security and regional stability.
So both countries are trying to build global legitimacy around their positions.
What makes the treaty so unique?
Honestly, very few water-sharing agreements in the world have survived this long between hostile neighbours.
That’s why the Indus Waters Treaty has often been called:
one of the most durable international water treaties ever signed.
Which is also why any disruption to it attracts global attention.
Because if this framework weakens, it raises a larger question:
Can long-term river-sharing agreements survive deep geopolitical hostility?
Final takeaway
The Indus Waters Treaty was built on one assumption:
Even hostile neighbours can cooperate over shared rivers.
Today, that assumption is under stress.
And what happens next may shape not just India-Pakistan relations…
but the future of water diplomacy in South Asia itself.