There was a contract signed between India and Pakistan, water-sharing agreements globally, enduring wars, and decades of fraught relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. However, in recent times, this crucial pact, which governs the distribution of the six rivers of the Indus basin, finds itself under unprecedented strain, with India having recently announced.

It's "abeyance," and discussions of potential modifications and legal challenges dominate the discourse.

A Treaty Forged in Conflict, Tested by Time

The genesis of the IWT lies in the partition of British India in 1947, which arbitrarily divided the Indus River basin, leaving the headwaters in India and the lower riparian regions in Pakistan. This geographical reality immediately created a potential flashpoint, as Pakistan, heavily reliant on the Indus system for its agrarian economy, feared India could choke its water supply.

Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab were designated for Pakistan's unrestricted use, with India allowed certain limited, non-consumptive uses, including run-of-the-river hydropower projects, on these western rivers. The treaty also established the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), comprising commissioners from both countries, to manage and resolve any issues arising from the treaty's implementation.

For over six decades, despite numerous conflicts, including full-scale wars, the IWT largely remained intact, a testament to its robust framework and the mutual understanding of its vital importance for regional stability. However, the underlying tensions and disputes over interpretation, particularly concerning India's hydropower projects on the Western Rivers, have consistently simmered beneath the surface.

The Current Precipice: Abeyance and Accusations

The most significant and immediate development concerning the IWT is India's recent announcement, following a terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in April 2025, that it has put the treaty "in abeyance." This move signifies a dramatic escalation in India's posture towards the treaty and its relationship with Pakistan.

India has unequivocally linked the suspension of the treaty to Pakistan's alleged continued support for cross-border terrorism. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's repeated assertion that "blood and water cannot flow together" underscores India's position that the foundational principles of goodwill and friendship, enshrined in the treaty's preamble, have been violated by Pakistan's actions.

It also signals India's intent to fully utilize its entitlements under the treaty, particularly on the Western Rivers, by fast-tracking hydropower projects. India maintains that it has not fully utilized its permissible uses on these rivers, and the suspension allows it to optimize these opportunities without Pakistan's constant objections.

Pakistan, on its part, has vehemently rejected India's unilateral decision, terming it "unjust, politically motivated, extremely irresponsible, and devoid of legal merit." Islamabad views any attempt to stop or divert its allocated water as an "Act of War" and has warned of a strong response. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has urged India to reconsider the suspension, emphasizing the treaty's critical role in supporting 80% of Pakistan's agricultural water needs and the lives of its 240 million people.

While the immediate trigger for India's "abeyance" of the IWT is cross-border terrorism, it is crucial to understand that underlying hydrological and geopolitical tensions have been building for years.

Pakistan has repeatedly raised objections to the design of these projects, including the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric power plants, arguing that they violate the treaty by allowing India to control water flows and create storage beyond permissible limits. These disputes have often led to the invocation of the treaty's intricate three-tiered dispute resolution mechanism.

The first level of dispute resolution, where commissioners from both sides try to resolve differences through dialogue.

For more serious "disputes," a Court of Arbitration can be constituted.

The current situation is complicated by the fact that the dispute resolution mechanisms themselves have become a point of contention. In recent years, both a Neutral Expert and a Court of Arbitration have been appointed by the World Bank to address overlapping issues concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle projects, leading to concerns about parallel proceedings and potentially inconsistent outcomes.

India had also invoked Article XII (3) of the treaty in January 2023, proposing modifications to the treaty, citing changed circumstances including demographic shifts, increased water requirements, and the impacts of climate change.

Further, the growing specter of climate change adds another layer of complexity. The Indus basin, fed by Himalayan glaciers, is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including changes in precipitation patterns, glacial melt, and increased frequency of extreme weather events like floods and droughts. These environmental shifts are altering water availability and demand, making the existing treaty framework, drafted in a different era, seem increasingly inadequate to address future challenges.

Both India and Pakistan are facing increasing water stress, driven by population growth, urbanization, and agricultural demands. This intensifies the competition for shared resources and makes any disruption to water flows a matter of national security.

Implications of the "Abeyance"

The "abeyance" of the IWT carries significant implications for both India and Pakistan, as well as for regional stability.

• For India: The move allows India greater flexibility in developing its water resources on the Western Rivers, potentially accelerating hydropower projects and enhancing its water security. However, it also risks international condemnation for unilaterally altering the terms of a long-standing international treaty and could further exacerbate tensions with Pakistan.
• For Pakistan: The suspension raises serious concerns about water security, particularly for its agriculture-dependent economy. While India may not be able to completely cut off water supply due to geographical limitations and the "run-of-the-river" nature of its projects, the lack of data sharing and cooperation can impact flood forecasting and water management, potentially leading to increased vulnerability to floods and droughts. Pakistan's threat to consider this an "act of war" highlights the severity of the issue for them.
• Regional Stability: The IWT has historically been a crucial element of stability in a volatile region. Its suspension, even if temporary, introduces a new dimension of uncertainty and raises the risk of accidental escalation or deliberate provocation. The absence of a functional Permanent Indus Commission or other cooperative mechanisms during this period could further deepen mistrust and create an environment ripe for miscalculation.
• International Law and Mediation: The World Bank, as a signatory to the treaty, finds itself in a challenging position. While the IWT does not have an exit clause, India's unilateral suspension raises questions about the enforceability of international agreements in the face of perceived security threats.

The ongoing parallel arbitration processes further complicate the legal landscape. The international community will be closely watching how this situation unfolds, given the potential for wider implications for transboundary water governance.

The current state of the Indus Waters Treaty is precarious. India's strong stance, linking water sharing to cross-border terrorism, reflects a hardened diplomatic approach. Pakistan, heavily reliant on the Indus system, views any disruption as an existential threat.

De-escalation and a return to dialogue are crucial, but seem difficult given the current geopolitical climate. While India has issued a notice to amend the treaty in the past, Pakistan has been reluctant to engage in renegotiation, fearing it would disadvantage its interests.

Possible avenues for resolution, however fraught, include:

1. Renewed Dialogue: Despite the current suspension, sustained diplomatic engagement through the Permanent Indus Commission or other channels remains the most viable path to de-escalation and addressing the underlying concerns of both sides.
2. Revisiting the Treaty's Provisions: While challenging, a re-evaluation of certain treaty provisions in light of climate change realities and evolving water demands could be beneficial. This would require a significant level of trust and political will from both sides, which is currently in short supply.
3. Third-Party Mediation: The World Bank could play a more active mediating role, potentially exploring innovative solutions that address both water security and security concerns. However, the effectiveness of mediation depends on the willingness of both parties to genuinely engage.
4. Technological Solutions: Investing in joint data sharing mechanisms, advanced hydrological forecasting, and climate-resilient water management practices could help build confidence and mitigate the impacts of water scarcity and extreme weather events.

The Indus Waters Treaty, a testament to pragmatic diplomacy in a deeply divided region, is at a critical juncture. Its continued "abeyance" threatens not only a vital water-sharing arrangement but also the fragile peace between two nuclear-armed neighbors. The challenge for India and Pakistan, and for the international community, is to find a way to navigate these turbulent waters, ensuring that a source of life does not become a catalyst for further conflict. The future of millions, and indeed regional stability, hinges on their ability to find common ground, even in the face of profound distrust and escalating tensions.

.    .    .