Indus Water Treaty Dispute Rekindles India–Pakistan Tensions
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, has long governed how India and Pakistan share rivers that originate in India. Recently, tensions have escalated anew over accusations from Pakistan that India is diverting or planning to divert water from rivers allocated under the treaty. India, for its part, maintains its water projects comply with the treaty. These developments threaten to deepen diplomatic hostility between the two nations and bring into question the future of one of the oldest international water-sharing agreements.
What Is the Indus Waters Treaty?
- Basics of the Treaty
The IWT divides six rivers between the two nations: the three “eastern” rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) are primarily for India’s use; the three “western” rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) are allocated largely to Pakistan. India is permitted certain limited uses of the western rivers — for instance, for hydroelectric power (especially run-of-the-river projects), agriculture, domestic needs, and flood control — but must respect treaty rules on storage, flows, design details, and notification. - Mechanisms for Dispute Resolution
The Treaty established the Permanent Indus Commission, a bilateral body to discuss implementation and resolve disagreements. Technical and legal mechanisms include a “Neutral Expert” for certain technical disputes, and a Court of Arbitration for more complex or serious disagreements. The Treaty’s rules require both sides to share data, and to allow inspection or lodge objections in specified time frames.
Recent Developments Triggering Tension
India’s Suspension of the Treaty
In April 2025, India announced it was putting the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance — meaning it is suspended — after a terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir that New Delhi attributed to elements in Pakistan. India has tied the treaty’s reinstatement to what it calls credible and irreversible action by Pakistan against cross-border terrorism.
Pakistan’s Response
Pakistan has strongly condemned this move, calling it a violation of international law and warning of serious consequences for its agriculture, hydropower, and livelihoods. The treaty is vital for Pakistan: about 80% of its farmland depends on water from the western rivers.
Ongoing Disputes Over Projects
Several Indian hydroelectric or dam projects on western rivers are at the heart of dispute, especially the Kishenganga, Ratle, and Pakal Dul projects. Pakistan claims these projects violate treaty norms — either by storing more water than allowed, altering design without proper notification, or reducing downstream flow. India argues its projects conform to treaty provisions (run-of-river designs, limited storage, etc.).
Neutral Expert & Arbitration
In 2022, the World Bank appointed a Neutral Expert to examine technical objections by Pakistan over projects like Kishenganga and Ratle. Pakistan has also called for Court of Arbitration proceedings. India insists on using the Neutral Expert in many cases and has questioned parallel arbitration.
Why Is the Dispute So Serious?
| Issue | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Water security for Pakistan | A large share of Pakistan’s agriculture, hydropower, and drinking water rely on flows from the western rivers. Any significant cut or alteration can hurt crops, food supply, and economic stability. |
| Legal & Treaty Norms | The IWT is considered a success among water treaties, having survived wars and conflicts. Breaking or suspending treaty norms undermines trust and international norms. |
| Strategic and Political Stakes | Water is a strategic resource. Disputes inflame national sentiment. As tensions rise, there’s risk of escalation beyond diplomatic — though both sides have strong incentives to avoid violence. |
| Environmental & Seasonal Risks | Monsoon floods, timing of water release, sediment flows—all are sensitive. Unilateral actions (without notification) can worsen floods or droughts downstream. |
India’s Position and Justifications
- Treaty Compliance
India claims that its ongoing projects adhere to treaty rules — water stored is limited, designs follow prescribed norms, and downstream flow isn’t being blocked. - Need for Amendment / Review
India argues that many provisions of the IWT are outdated. Given how climate, population, energy demand, and hydroelectric technology have changed since 1960, India feels modifications are justified. Delays in resolving objections and overlapping dispute-resolution mechanisms are also cited as reasons to revise the treaty. - Security Concerns
Tying the treaty to broader issues, India insists that while sharing water is important, so is ensuring the national security environment — and that continuing cooperation under the treaty requires that Pakistan act against cross-border terrorism in irreversible ways.
What Pakistan Argues
- Treaty Suspension Is Illegal
Pakistan says India cannot unilaterally suspend or put the treaty in abeyance. The treaty has explicit legal procedures for dispute resolution. Suspension, it argues, violates treaty obligations and international law. - Risk to Lives & Economy
Any reduction in river flow, or failing to notify Pakistan ahead of water releases or infrastructure changes, could cause flooding, crop failure, power shortages, and hardship for millions. Those downstream are particularly vulnerable. - Demand for Transparency
Pakistan wants full access to design details, flow data, dam operating schedules, flood release warnings, and for India to follow treaty protocols of mutual notification.
Possible Paths Forward
- Diplomatic Negotiation
Both countries could resume talks under the Indus Commission or via bilateral diplomacy; this may help rebuild confidence. - Legal / Mediation Channels
Use of the Neutral Expert, the Court of Arbitration, or third-party facilitation (for instance by international bodies) could help resolve some technical issues. - Treaty Revision
If both sides agree, certain treaty clauses might be updated to reflect modern water management, climate change, hydropower technologies, and security concerns. - Confidence-Building Measures
Early warning systems for floods, shared hydrological data, joint monitoring of rivers, and smaller cooperative projects can help reduce mistrust.
Challenges Ahead
- Lack of Trust: Deep suspicion on both sides makes cooperation difficult.
- Technical Disagreements: What counts as “run-of-river,” what storage is allowed, and how much flow is “sufficient” often become debates. Design norms are complex.
- Political Pressures: Domestic politics in both countries tend to favour firm stands; any perceived concession may be politically costly.
- Climatic Variability: Changing rainfall patterns, glacial melt, and extreme weather make predictions harder and complicate planning.
Conclusion
The rekindled dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty reflects more than water. It signals how resource sharing, legal obligations, national security, and climate pressures intersect. While India asserts its projects comply, Pakistan sees potential violations and warns of serious downstream consequences. Resolution will require more than arguing; it will need mechanisms that both sides trust, transparent data, and perhaps treaty reforms. Otherwise, the risk is not merely diplomatic tension, but real harm to people, agriculture, and livelihoods on both sides.
FAQ
Q1: What does it mean that India has suspended or put the treaty in “abeyance”?
A: Putting the treaty in abeyance means India has temporarily paused its operational cooperation under the treaty — for example, it may stop sharing some data or complying with certain treaty obligations — until it sees certain conditions met (in this case, action against cross-border terrorism).
Q2: Is India violating the treaty by building dams like Pakal Dul or Ratle?
A: Pakistan claims yes, pointing to issues such as storage capacity, design changes, or insufficient notification. India says no, arguing these projects are lawful under the treaty because they are run-of-river or have limited storage and follow design norms. Which side is correct depends on technical details and how dispute mechanisms interpret them.
Q3: What tools exist for resolving disagreements under the treaty?
A: The treaty allows for a Permanent Indus Commission (for bilateral discussions), a Neutral Expert (for technical disputes), and a Court of Arbitration (for legal or broader issues). There are fixed norms for how objections must be raised, notifications given, and design specifications shared.
Q4: How might this dispute affect people?
A: Downstream communities in Pakistan depend heavily on water from the western rivers for farming, drinking, power, and livelihoods. Any reduction, delay, or change in flow can lead to water shortages, crop failure, power issues, or even floods if draining isn’t managed correctly. Prices of food might rise; people may suffer.
Q5: Could the treaty eventually be rewritten or replaced?
A: Yes, that is one possibility. India has signaled interest in reviewing or modifying the treaty to reflect changed conditions — like climate change, population growth, and new technology. But rewriting a treaty requires agreement from both sides, which is challenging given the current distrust.
