The Indus Waters Treaty: Why India Cannot Unilaterally End Pakistan’s Vital Water Lifeline

For Pakistan, the Indus River and its tributaries are not merely waterways—they are the lifeblood of a nation. These rivers irrigate 47 million acres of farmland, sustain 80% of agriculture, and underpin 24% of the country’s GDP, supporting the livelihoods of 37.4% of its 247.5 million citizens. The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed on September 19, 1960, with India under the World Bank’s mediation, ensures Pakistan’s access to this vital resource by allocating the Indus system’s waters equitably. However, India’s announcement on April 23, 2025, to suspend the treaty in response to a militant attack in Kashmir has escalated tensions, raising fears of water disruptions in Pakistan, the lower riparian state. This article, firmly advocating for Pakistan’s rights, elucidates the IWT’s framework, details the legal obligations binding both parties, examines the consequences of potential violations, and explains why India cannot unilaterally terminate the treaty. With clarity and precision, we aim to inform stakeholders and underscore the treaty’s critical role in Pakistan’s survival.

What is the Indus Waters Treaty?

The Indus River system, encompassing the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab (western rivers), and Sutlej, Beas, Ravi (eastern rivers), originates in the Himalayas, primarily in Tibet and Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, before flowing through Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. The 1947 partition placed the rivers’ headworks in India, creating vulnerabilities for downstream Pakistan. After nine years of negotiations, the IWT established a robust framework to manage water allocation, fostering stability despite bilateral tensions.

Key provisions include:

• Water Allocation: Pakistan receives unrestricted use of the western rivers, accounting for 80% of the system’s 135 million acre-feet (MAF) annual flow, subject to India’s limited non-consumptive uses (e.g., run-of-river hydropower). India controls the eastern rivers, comprising 20% (33 MAF), with minor exceptions for Pakistan.

  Get weekly Halal investment opportunities & Business Growth Strategies

  
  

  Subscribe

  Loading...

  Subscribe

  Loading...

  Thank you!

  You have successfully joined our subscriber list.

• Financial Support: India contributed £62.06 million (equivalent to 125 metric tons of gold today) in ten annual installments to fund Pakistan’s irrigation infrastructure, including the Tarbela and Mangla dams, despite the 1965 war.

• Permanent Indus Commission (PIC): Each nation appoints a commissioner to facilitate data exchange, conduct inspections, and resolve issues through annual meetings, ensuring ongoing cooperation.

• Dispute Resolution: Article IX provides a three-tier mechanism—PIC negotiations, neutral expert review, and arbitration—to address disputes, maintaining treaty integrity during conflicts.

The IWT has enabled Pakistan to develop one of the world’s largest irrigation networks, critical for crops like wheat, rice, and sugarcane, which drive food security and exports. Its endurance through three wars (1965, 1971, 1999) and numerous disputes underscores its status as a global exemplar of transboundary water governance.

Legal Obligations of the Treaty

The IWT imposes precise legal obligations on Pakistan, India, and the World Bank, ensuring equitable water management and conflict prevention. Below is a detailed examination of these commitments:

• Responsible Water Use: Pakistan must utilize the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) for irrigation, hydropower, and domestic needs within treaty-specified limits, avoiding excessive storage or diversion that could disrupt regional water dynamics.

• Data Transparency: Pakistan is required to share operational data on its water infrastructure, such as dam and canal activities, to maintain trust and enable India to monitor compliance.

• PIC Participation: Pakistan’s commissioner must engage actively in the PIC, attending meetings, sharing updates, and seeking diplomatic resolutions to disputes.

• Adherence to Dispute Resolution: Pakistan is obligated to follow Article IX’s three-step process—negotiation, neutral expert, or arbitration—for any disagreements, ensuring disputes do not derail the treaty.

• Preservation of Western River Flows: India must refrain from actions that significantly reduce or alter the flow of the western rivers to Pakistan, limiting its use to non-consumptive purposes like run-of-river hydropower, subject to strict design and operational constraints.

• Eastern River Management: India has near-exclusive rights to the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi, but must permit Pakistan’s limited, agreed-upon uses, such as irrigation in border regions.

• Data Sharing: India is required to provide Pakistan with regular flow and flood data for the western rivers, enabling effective water management and disaster preparedness.

• PIC Engagement: India’s commissioner must collaborate with Pakistan’s counterpart, participating in inspections and negotiations to resolve issues amicably.

• Commitment to Dispute Resolution: India must adhere to Article IX’s mechanism, ensuring treaty provisions remain in effect during disputes.

• Facilitative Role: As a treaty signatory, the World Bank serves as a mediator, not an enforcer, appointing neutral experts or arbitrators upon request and hosting treaty records.

• Impartiality: The Bank must remain neutral, encouraging dialogue without favoring either party, as demonstrated in past disputes over India’s Kishanganga and Ratle projects.

These obligations, enshrined in the treaty’s 12 articles and eight annexures, create a binding framework that neither party can unilaterally abrogate. Article XII(4) explicitly states that the treaty remains in force until replaced by a mutually ratified agreement, reinforcing its permanence.

Can India Unilaterally Terminate the Treaty?

India’s April 2025 decision to suspend the IWT, citing alleged Pakistani support for terrorism following the Pahalgam attack, has alarmed Pakistan, which views the treaty as existential. However, India’s attempt to hold the treaty in abeyance lacks legal and practical viability, as detailed below, affirming Pakistan’s position that such actions are impermissible.

The IWT is a binding international agreement with no provision for unilateral termination or suspension. Article XII(4) mandates that any termination requires a new treaty agreed upon by both governments, ensuring mutual consent. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reflecting customary international law that India acknowledges, permits termination only for a “material breach” (Article 60). Pakistan’s alleged involvement in terrorism, which Islamabad refutes, does not constitute a breach of the IWT’s water-sharing obligations. Furthermore, Article IX requires that treaty provisions remain active during disputes, rendering India’s suspension a violation of the treaty’s terms.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry has challenged India to substantiate its claims before international bodies, asserting the IWT’s inviolability. Legal scholars, such as Zainab Khan of Tufts University, argue that India’s action risks censure at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where Pakistan could seek redress for treaty breaches. The World Bank, while lacking enforcement powers, could publicly criticize India’s move, leveraging its role as treaty guarantor to urge compliance. India’s suspension, absent legal grounding, undermines its credibility as a responsible global actor, particularly given its upper riparian role in other river systems like the Brahmaputra.

India’s ability to disrupt Pakistan’s water supply is limited by infrastructural and logistical realities. India’s storage capacity on the western rivers is restricted to 3.6 MAF under the treaty, insufficient to significantly alter flows. Constructing large-scale dams to block the Indus, Jhelum, or Chenab would require 10-15 years, billions in investment, and face environmental and political opposition in Jammu and Kashmir. Run-of-river projects, such as Kishanganga, are designed for power generation, not water retention, and cannot substantially reduce downstream flows. While India could withhold flow or flood data, as suggested by some Indian analysts, this would complicate Pakistan’s water management without halting supply.

Pakistan’s storage capacity, at 14.4 MAF across Tarbela and Mangla dams, represents only 10% of its annual share, heightening its vulnerability to disruptions. However, India’s suspension appears to be a diplomatic maneuver rather than an immediate threat, as infrastructure limitations preclude rapid action. Long-term, dam construction could reduce lean-season flows, threatening Pakistan’s agriculture, which supports 16 million hectares and 25% of GDP.

Ramifications of Treaty Violations

Violations of the IWT by either party carry severe consequences, impacting bilateral relations, regional stability, and global perceptions. Below is a comprehensive analysis of potential outcomes.

• Legal Repercussions: Pakistan could initiate proceedings at the ICJ or UN Security Council, accusing India of breaching a binding treaty. A favorable ruling would compel India to restore compliance, bolstering Pakistan’s position.

• Escalatory Risks: Pakistan’s government has labeled India’s suspension an “act of aggression,” warning of a robust response. Pakistan’s military doctrine permits kinetic action against existential water threats, risking conflict between nuclear-armed states.

• Economic Impact on Pakistan: Even minor flow disruptions could reduce crop yields, increase food prices, and exacerbate poverty among Pakistan’s 37.4% agrarian workforce. Ghasharib Shaokat of Pakistan Agriculture Research estimates potential losses in the billions, with small farmers bearing the brunt.

• Regional Instability: India’s actions could prompt China to restrict Brahmaputra flows, on which India relies for 30% of its freshwater, triggering a broader water security crisis in South Asia.

• International Backlash: The U.S., UN, or World Bank may intervene to de-escalate, as water conflicts threaten global stability. Public sentiment on platforms like X, exemplified by @Dawn_News, underscores growing international concern over India’s move.

• Diplomatic Leverage for India: If Pakistan misused water or neglected PIC obligations, India could escalate disputes to arbitration or withhold data, complicating Pakistan’s water planning.

• Credibility Loss: Non-compliance would weaken Pakistan’s moral and legal standing, undermining its ability to challenge India’s actions.

• Domestic Challenges: Violations could spark internal criticism, as Pakistan’s citizens rely on the treaty’s protections for economic stability.

The treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism mitigates violations effectively. For instance, Pakistan’s 2010 objection to India’s Kishanganga dam led to a neutral expert ruling that upheld India’s project but imposed flow safeguards. Ongoing arbitration over the Ratle and Kishanganga projects, initiated in 2023, demonstrates the system’s functionality, ensuring violations are addressed without treaty collapse.

Pakistan’s Strategic Response

Pakistan must adopt a multifaceted approach to safeguard its water security:

• Legal Action: Pursue recourse at the ICJ or UN, framing India’s suspension as a violation of international law and highlighting the humanitarian impact on 247.5 million citizens.

• World Bank Mediation: Engage the World Bank to facilitate dialogue, leveraging its treaty role to pressure India into compliance.

• Infrastructure Investment: Accelerate dam projects, such as Diamer-Bhasha, with support from allies like China, to enhance storage capacity and reduce dependence on upstream flows.

• Diplomatic Advocacy: Mobilize international support through forums like the UN and platforms like X, emphasizing the IWT’s role in preventing conflict. Statements from figures like @HamidMirPAK amplify Pakistan’s case.

• Strategic Posturing: While avoiding escalation, maintain a credible deterrence posture to underscore the existential nature of water security.

The Indus Waters Treaty is Pakistan’s cornerstone of water security, ensuring access to the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers that sustain its economy and people. India’s April 2025 suspension, lacking legal or practical feasibility, violates the treaty’s binding obligations and risks severe consequences, from economic devastation in Pakistan to regional instability. The IWT’s robust framework—allocating 80% of waters to Pakistan, mandating cooperation through the PIC, and providing dispute resolution—precludes unilateral termination. Violations by either party trigger legal, diplomatic, and economic repercussions, underscoring the treaty’s resilience. Pakistan must leverage international law, infrastructure development, and global advocacy to protect its rights. The Indus system is Pakistan’s lifeline, and the IWT remains its unassailable shield.