Indus Waters Treaty in Abeyance – Explained

Indus Water Treaty Latest News

• It has been over a year since India placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack, with the Ministry of External Affairs reiterating that the Treaty will remain suspended until Pakistan credibly abjures cross-border terrorism.

About the Indus Waters Treaty

• The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is a water-sharing agreement signed between India and Pakistan on September 19, 1960, with the World Bank acting as a facilitator. 
• The Treaty was signed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan, after nearly nine years of negotiations brokered by the World Bank.
• The Treaty governs the sharing of the waters of six major transboundary rivers of the Indus river system flowing through both countries:
  • Eastern Rivers: Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej, allocated to India for unrestricted use.
  • Western Rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, allocated to Pakistan, with India allowed limited, non-consumptive use for irrigation, hydropower, navigation, and domestic purposes.
• The Treaty established the Permanent Indus Commission, consisting of one commissioner from each country, to facilitate cooperation and information exchange. 
• It also provided a three-tier dispute resolution mechanism:
  • Permanent Indus Commission for routine matters.
  • Neutral Expert appointed by the World Bank for technical differences.
  • Court of Arbitration for legal disputes.

‹ ›

Significance of the Treaty

• The Indus River system is crucial for both countries:
  • For India: It supports agriculture, hydropower generation, and meets the development needs of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan.
  • For Pakistan: It is the lifeline of agriculture, fulfilling over 70% of its irrigation requirements.
• The Treaty has historically ensured predictability in water flows, reduced the scope for water-related conflicts, and provided a framework for cooperation despite political tensions.

India’s Decision to Hold the Treaty in Abeyance

• Following the Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025 and the subsequent Operation Sindoor, India decided to keep the Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance”. 
• This means India no longer considers itself bound by the Treaty’s provisions for the time being.
• India’s decision has disrupted normal flows reaching Pakistan, affected data-sharing mechanisms, and halted regular meetings of the Indus Waters Commissioners, creating uncertainty for Pakistan’s water planning, flood preparedness, and drought management.

Pakistan’s Response: Internationalising the Issue

• Being the downstream state, Pakistan has been severely affected by India’s decision. With limited unilateral options, Pakistan has pursued a strategy of internationalising the dispute:
• Approaches to International Bodies
  • United Nations Security Council (UNSC): As a non-permanent member since January 2025, Pakistan has repeatedly raised the issue at the UNSC, even during unrelated discussions on energy and critical minerals.
  • International Court of Justice (ICJ): Pakistan has sought ICJ intervention, although such a referral remains unlikely.
  • World Bank: As a Treaty facilitator, Pakistan has approached the World Bank seeking mediation.
  • UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC): Pakistan has framed the issue as a human rights concern, leading UN Special Rapporteurs to send communications to India seeking clarification, which India has ignored.
• Legal Argument
  • Pakistan’s core argument is that the Treaty contains no provision allowing either country to keep it in abeyance, only a dispute resolution mechanism. It claims India’s decision violates international law.

Court of Arbitration

• The Court of Arbitration, constituted under the IWT mechanism, ruled last year that India’s decision did not deprive the court of competence to proceed with pending matters. 
• India had objected to the very formation of this Court, arguing that a parallel mechanism through a World Bank-appointed neutral expert was already operational. 
• India has refused to participate in its proceedings and has rejected its rulings.

India’s Strategic Approach

• While countering Pakistan’s arguments at international forums, India has focused on two key actions:
• Building Infrastructure
  • India is accelerating the completion of long-delayed projects on the Indus river system. The Treaty allows India:
  • Unrestricted use of the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Sutlej, Beas).
  • Limited, non-consumptive use of the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) for hydropower and other purposes.
  • Historically, Pakistan has used the Treaty’s provisions to raise repeated objections to Indian projects, delaying them and increasing costs. India is now working to fully utilise its entitled water share.
• Strengthening Techno-Legal Case
  • India has constituted a committee of experts to strengthen its techno-legal position with new data and evidence. 
  • India argues that the situation has changed significantly over the past 65 years, and the Treaty needs to be renegotiated or replaced due to:
    • Population growth on the Indian side, increasing water demand.
    • Climate change introducing uncertainties in water availability and river flows.
    • Development and energy needs of Jammu and Kashmir.
    • New technologies making some Treaty constraints redundant.

Challenges and Way Forward

• Diplomatic Escalation: The issue could lead to major legal or diplomatic confrontation.
• Risk of Conflict: Pakistan has even threatened armed conflict over the matter.
• Regional Stability: Water scarcity in Pakistan could destabilise the region.
• Precedent Setting: India’s decision sets a precedent for linking transboundary water cooperation to national security concerns like terrorism.
• Pakistan’s larger objective is to get the UNSC to pass a resolution against India or refer the issue to the ICJ, outcomes considered unlikely. 
  • Its strategy appears focused on creating documentary references in UN records to build a long-term legal case.
• For India, the priority remains balancing its legitimate security concerns with its international obligations while modernising the Treaty framework to reflect contemporary realities.

Source: IE