Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address to the nation on May 12, 2025, clearly depicted India’s stance on the Indus Water Treaty. He mentioned that ‘Blood and water cannot flow together’, a signal that the suspension of the treaty is nowhere close to being revoked. Echoing the same sentiment, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar on 15 May 2025 left no room for ambiguity. His firm stand on keeping the treaty in ‘abeyance’ until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism” shows that negotiations will have to be brought to the table.
Although both countries have agreed to a ceasefire arrangement along the Line of Control (LoC), the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) remains. It is a complex matter as the IWT, which was signed in 1960, has withstood the impact of previous wars as well as the feelings of hostility between the two countries. Water, the quintessential lifeline of mankind, could provoke further disagreements from both sides of the border. While Pakistan continues to sponsor and nurture terrorism in its homeland, India has resorted to taking strict measures against its neighbor. And this leads us to the question: Is the abeyance of the treaty a roadmap to future conflict?
The Indus Water Treaty
The Indus Water Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960 with the mediation of the World Bank, has been regarded as one of the most successful water treaties in modern history. The agreement has seen it all – wars, cross–border skirmishes and even years of hostility, yet it stood the test of time. The treaty guarantees Pakistan the use of the water of three western rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, while India uses the water of eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej.
Around 80% of Pakistan’s population is dependent on the water flowing because of the treaty. Water required for irrigating the fields and for domestic purposes is largely provided by the western rivers. Even during the most tense political climate, India never violated the terms of the agreement. However, after the deadly Pahalgam terror attack of April 22, which took the lives of twenty-five innocent tourists, including a civilian, India took the huge step of closure of Attari–Wagah border, ousting of Pakistani diplomats, and suspending the IWT.
What Does It Mean For Bilateral Relations?
With Pakistan asking India to rethink the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, it is quite evident that ‘millions’ of its citizens will be affected by it. But India’s dual approach towards dealing with Pakistan reflects its calculated strategy. Our country has announced and supported the ceasefire agreement, which shows us as a responsible country to the international community. At the same time, the treaty abeyance is a show of strength and intolerance by India towards the continued military aggression and cross–border terrorism supported by Pakistan.
The message from India is clear – we have zero tolerance for any form of terrorism, and national security will always remain the top priority. To ensure the same, the country is willing to take every step possible, even to leverage its natural resources. This shift of dynamics between the two countries may result in future disputes, including hampering trade and business. The war has already resulted in the loss of lives of innocent civilians and soldiers. To achieve a long-term solution, both countries need to reach an agreement in the future.
Impact on The Lives Of People
The effect of the suspension of the IWT will be massive on both sides of the border. With Pakistan being heavily dependent on the Indus River system, any disruption in the water flow could pose a threat to their agricultural lands and their already fragile food security. This, in turn, could result in extreme poverty and undernourishment of children in the region. On the Indian side, this move could harm the delicate region of Jammu and Kashmir as the mismanagement of the river water will eventually create an ecological imbalance, affecting the livelihoods and the biodiversity of the area.
Moreover, the fight and anger over water might further aggravate the situation. It could lead to the birth of more extremist groups, with the youth getting strangled and brainwashed in the process. The turmoil could worsen the existing conflict and make national security an even more vulnerable matter.
International Reaction To The Abeyance and Legal Consequences
The reaction of the international community to the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty has been overwhelming. Britain, the former coloniser of both India and Pakistan, has collaborated with the United States of America to urge both countries to honour their existing agreements. They have called for maintaining peace and harmony in the region by conducting a series of peace talks. The Pakistani government has reportedly ‘appealed’ to New Delhi to reconsider its suspension. The World Bank, which had brokered the IWT in 1960, has clarified that its role was limited to mediating it. Although having distanced itself from the ongoing rift, the World Bank has advocated for resolving the issue through dialogue and discussion.
From a legal perspective, the IWT is a binding agreement without a formal exit clause, meaning that the obligations of the agreement need to be performed. However, India can justify the suspension by citing security reasons, following the attack on Pahalgam. But there are very rare exceptions in international law that allow such treatment. These have to be thoroughly justified in the court of law.
While the ceasefire seeks peace between the two nations, the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty paints a different picture. It presents a conflicting signal, followed by legal consequences, diplomatic tensions, damage to livelihood, and fear in the minds of the people. For Pakistan, a country that relies on the Indus Water system, the suspension will hurt its already struggling and dwindling economy. But India has also presented its firm stance. They want to create pressure on Pakistan to denounce the terrorism that it has been supporting for years. And to resolve the existing matter, cautious steps will have to be taken, or else we will find ourselves in the middle of another war.