India’s Strategic Shift on Indus Waters Treaty: A Necessary Response to the Pahalgam Terror Attack

The Pahalgam terror incident has shaken the conscience of the nation. Once again, the cost of harboring violent extremism has been paid by innocent civilians, and the need for a proportionate, strategic, and non-military response has taken center stage. In this context, the Government of India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance represents a watershed moment—not just for bilateral relations with Pakistan, but also for India’s evolving water security doctrine.

Signed in 1960, the Indus Waters Treaty was brokered by the World Bank and is often hailed as one of the most enduring water-sharing agreements in the world. It divided the six rivers of the Indus basin between the two nations: the three western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—were allocated to Pakistan, while the three eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—were granted to India. Over the last six decades, even during periods of war and heightened tensions, India has abided by the treaty’s obligations with extraordinary consistency. The decision to now suspend the treaty—temporarily or otherwise—marks a significant shift in policy. But it is neither impulsive nor provocative. It is a calibrated assertion of sovereignty, security, and the long-ignored principle of reciprocity.

*A Non-Military Lever in a Region of Asymmetries*

India has historically chosen restraint in the wake of terror attacks emanating from across the border. Whether in the aftermath of the 2001 Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai carnage, or the Pulwama bombing in 2019, India has largely relied on diplomatic offensives, global outreach, and surgical operations against terror infrastructure. But as the frequency and audacity of attacks increase, New Delhi needs to tap into every non-military lever at its disposal.

Water is one such lever—powerful, peaceful, and deeply consequential. By placing the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, India is not declaring war, but redefining the terms of peace. The message is clear: treaties cannot be one-sided acts of goodwill; they must be built on mutual trust, accountability, and the absence of hostilities.

*Pahalgam: A Grim Reminder*

The Pahalgam terror attack, which targeted a peaceful area long known for its scenic beauty and spiritual importance, has reignited public outrage over Pakistan’s continued tolerance—and in many cases, support—of terror outfits operating from its soil. This attack, like many before it, was not just an assault on lives and property; it was an assault on India’s sovereignty, on its people’s sense of safety, and on the norms of international conduct.

When repeated diplomatic démarches fail, and when global actors turn a blind eye to cross-border terrorism, sovereign nations must fall back on the tools they directly control. The Indus Waters Treaty—though symbolic of post-colonial cooperation—cannot be immune to persistent violations of basic international norms by the other signatory.

*A Legally Justifiable and Morally Defensible Move*

While the IWT has no explicit provision for abrogation or suspension, it also presumes good faith from both parties. India’s decision to place the treaty in abeyance is being framed not as a permanent exit, but as a temporary suspension conditioned on Pakistan’s conduct. This is critical. By not unilaterally withdrawing but instead freezing the operational aspects of the treaty, India is signaling its commitment to international law, while also asserting that legal obligations do not operate in a political vacuum.

Moreover, such a move will likely withstand international scrutiny. As per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a “material breach” of a bilateral treaty—defined as a violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the treaty’s object and purpose—can be grounds for termination or suspension. Pakistan’s continued inaction on curbing terrorism can reasonably be interpreted as such a breach, especially since security and peaceful relations are the implicit foundation of any water-sharing agreement.

*Implications for Regional Water Security*

The decision to suspend the IWT sends a powerful signal to Pakistan, but it also raises important questions for the region’s future. Water is emerging as a 21st-century strategic resource, and India must now develop a long-term water diplomacy framework that is both firm and farsighted.

This move could spur a much-needed internal conversation on India’s full utilization of its share of the Indus waters. Despite having the right to use waters from the eastern rivers, much of this potential remains untapped. Projects like Shahpur Kandi, Ujh Multipurpose Project, and second Ravi-Beas link canal must be fast-tracked. India must invest in modern irrigation, water storage, and hydroelectric infrastructure—not just as a retaliatory mechanism, but as a sovereign right long delayed.

Additionally, this moment allows India to reinforce its position as a responsible upper riparian state. Unlike China, which has weaponized the Brahmaputra and Mekong rivers with little transparency, India must adopt a model that is assertive without being destabilizing. Multilateral engagement with other river-sharing nations in South Asia—Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh—must be strengthened to build a regional consensus on responsible water sharing and infrastructure development.

*Global Context: From Soft Power to Smart Power*

India’s foreign policy has matured from reactive diplomacy to proactive statecraft. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty reflects this shift. Instead of appealing endlessly to global forums, India is now demonstrating that it is willing to leverage every instrument of statecraft to protect its people and interests.

Western capitals and global institutions should recognize that India is not violating the spirit of the treaty—it is responding to a decade-long pattern of provocation and non-cooperation. If the global community truly wishes for peace in South Asia, it must no longer treat Pakistan’s duplicity as a given. India’s move may, in fact, force a long-overdue conversation about accountability and the limits of impunity.

*The Road Ahead*

This is not merely a punitive decision—it is a policy shift. It creates space for renegotiating the framework of Indo-Pak water relations based on 21st-century realities, not 20th-century assumptions. Climate change, glacier melt, shifting monsoons, and growing populations demand a more resilient and equitable arrangement than the one framed in the 1960s.

However, India must be prepared for diplomatic pushback, including attempts by Pakistan to internationalize the issue. New Delhi must firmly communicate that this is an internal sovereign decision made in response to external aggression—and that normalization of water ties is contingent upon normalization of peace.

The Pahalgam attack must not become another statistic in the long ledger of unpunished provocations. It must be remembered as the moment when India chose to act—not with vengeance, but with vision. In placing the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, the Government of India has sent a clear message: peace cannot flow where blood is spilled.