India’s Suspension of Indus Waters Treaty: Legal Backing, Global Implications, and Future Steps
Following the brutal terror attack on tourists in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam by Pakistan-backed terrorists, India has moved to suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan. The move has triggered strong reactions, with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warning that any suspension would “amount to an act of war.” However, international law experts argue that India is within its rights to suspend the treaty, citing substantial legal grounds under global conventions.
CAN INDIA UNILATERALLY SUSPEND THE INDUS WATERS TREATY?
The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank, governs the distribution and use of water from six rivers — the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — between India and Pakistan. As per the original agreement, the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) were allocated to India, while Pakistan received the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab).
The treaty itself lacks a direct clause for unilateral suspension. Article XII specifies that the treaty can only be modified or terminated through mutual consent, via a ratified agreement between the two countries. However, with Pakistan allegedly continuing to support cross-border terrorism, India argues that the foundational spirit of “goodwill and friendship” underpinning the treaty has been fundamentally breached.
HOW IS INDIA LEGALLY JUSTIFYING THE SUSPENSION?
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul and former Indus Water Commissioner PK Saxena highlight that international conventions — particularly the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties — offer India the legal framework to suspend or withdraw from the IWT.
Article 62 of the Vienna Convention allows suspension or termination of treaties in the case of a “fundamental change of circumstances.” The essential conditions are:
- The changed circumstances must have constituted a key reason why parties consented to the treaty.
- The change must radically transform the obligations still to be performed.
Given the repeated acts of terrorism and attacks on Indian soil allegedly sponsored by Pakistan, India can argue that the conditions under which the treaty was signed no longer exist. Terrorism, threatening India’s sovereignty, economic stability, and security, fundamentally alters the circumstances from those prevailing in 1960.
Speaking to India Today TV, advocate Kaul said, “This is certainly an argument that can be made if Pakistan chooses to involve the International Court of Justice or the International Court of Arbitration.”
GLOBAL STANDARDS AND PRECEDENTS
While the Vienna Convention offers a legal route, suspension of a water-sharing treaty is rare and extremely sensitive. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has already urged both India and Pakistan to show maximum restraint. Nevertheless, India maintains that the unique situation — sustained terror threats — grants it the right to reconsider existing bilateral agreements, particularly when national security is at stake.
Additionally, India has long emphasized that disputes between India and Pakistan must remain bilateral, resisting internationalization — a principle consistently upheld since the Shimla Agreement of 1972.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT CAN INDIA DO NEXT?
Suspending the treaty does not imply an immediate halt to water flow. Rather, India has a range of actions it can take — starting from minor restrictions to significant diversions:
- Administrative Actions:
- India could stop sharing hydrological data with Pakistan.
- Refuse to allow Pakistani officials to inspect river systems, violating treaty protocols.
- Short-term Measures:
- Divert water flows into Indian canals and reservoirs.
- Increase storage within allowed limits to restrict immediate downstream availability.
- Medium to Long-term Actions:
- Expedite construction of pending hydropower projects such as the Ratle project on Chenab.
- Maximize water usage from the eastern rivers, as permitted by the treaty.
- Build new barrages and storage facilities to optimize water use for Indian agriculture and hydroelectric needs.
Importantly, infrastructure already exists on several river systems — such as the Upper Bari Doab Canal on Ravi — which India could utilize more aggressively. India could, for instance, increase storage capacities at the Baglihar Dam on Chenab or construct new facilities to enhance irrigation and power generation.
ONGOING LEGAL DISPUTES: KISHANGANGA AND RATLE PROJECTS
India and Pakistan have been locked in international legal battles at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague over hydropower projects like the Kishanganga on the Neelam (a tributary of Jhelum) and the Ratle project on the Chenab.
While Kishanganga is operational since 2018, the Ratle project is under construction. With the suspension of the treaty, India could potentially withdraw from international arbitration proceedings and proceed with unhindered development of its hydropower ambitions on these rivers — disregarding the earlier commitments made under the IWT.
HUMANITARIAN IMPACT ON PAKISTAN
Summer months heighten Pakistan’s dependence on river waters for drinking, agriculture, electricity generation, and inland navigation. Any substantial reduction or diversion of river flows by India would deal a severe blow to Pakistan’s economy and daily life.
The Indus system supports millions of livelihoods, and agriculture is the backbone of Pakistan’s economy. Any disruption in the irrigation system would have profound social and economic consequences, increasing pressure on the Pakistani government domestically and internationally.
WHAT LIES AHEAD?
Despite legal backing, India will tread cautiously. While suspension serves as a strong diplomatic signal, India is also aware that drastic action could attract global attention and pressure. New Delhi would likely opt for a calibrated strategy — combining legal assertion, measured operational actions, and diplomatic engagement to maximize its leverage without escalating the situation into open conflict.
The broader context remains clear: India’s move is not just a reaction to a single incident but a culmination of years of frustration over repeated cross-border terrorism. With the Indus Waters Treaty long held up as a model of cooperation despite hostilities, its suspension marks a significant shift — and potentially, a redefinition of India-Pakistan relations in the years ahead.
IT.
