Indus Waters Treaty After the Pahalgam Attack: A Fragile Agreement Under Pressure

Introduction

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, has long been a symbol of stability between India and Pakistan—even when diplomatic ties were strained or broken. But the recent Pahalgam attack in 2025, which claimed the lives of several Indian security personnel, has once again brought the future of this critical water-sharing agreement into question.

With anger and grief sweeping across India, calls have resurfaced to revisit or even revoke the treaty, once again highlighting how water—normally a symbol of life—can become a political weapon in times of conflict.

Understanding the Indus Waters Treaty

Brokered by the World Bank and signed by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s President Ayub Khan, the IWT divides the Indus River system:

  • Eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej): Exclusive use by India
  • Western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab): Largely used by Pakistan, though India can use them for non-consumptive purposes like hydroelectricity and irrigation, under strict technical conditions

The treaty created a Permanent Indus Commission to ensure smooth coordination, data exchange, and dispute resolution between the two nations.

Pahalgam Attack: Reigniting Tensions

In May 2025, a terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, led to the deaths of over a dozen Indian soldiers. The attack, reportedly carried out by militants backed by groups based in Pakistan, has triggered public outrage and political pressure in India to respond forcefully.

As with previous incidents (like Uri in 2016 and Pulwama in 2019), discussions have intensified about using the Indus Waters Treaty as leverage. The argument: Why should India continue honoring a water-sharing agreement with a country allegedly supporting cross-border terrorism?

India’s Reaction: Revisiting the Treaty

Following the Pahalgam attack, Indian government sources have hinted at the following possible moves:

  • Fast-tracking hydroelectric projects on western rivers, like Ratle and Pakal Dul
  • Withholding water from eastern rivers that flows into Pakistan—though this would require massive infrastructure changes
  • Revising the dispute resolution mechanism under the treaty
  • Increasing diplomatic pressure to label Pakistan as violating the spirit of cooperation

India has not yet officially withdrawn or suspended the treaty, but the tone has hardened significantly.

Pakistan’s Response

Pakistan has condemned the Pahalgam attack but denies any involvement. In response to India's rhetoric, Pakistan has:

  • Warned of international legal action if India attempts to block water flow
  • Urged the World Bank and international community to uphold the treaty
  • Stepped up diplomatic outreach to highlight the importance of the IWT for regional peace

Current Situation (Post-Pahalgam)

  • Talks between Indus commissioners have stalled, and future meetings are uncertain
  • India is accelerating dam construction, with engineers and planners given a green light to push projects along the Chenab and Jhelum
  • No official cancellation of the treaty, but both sides are preparing for a more confrontational phase

This is the most serious challenge to the IWT since its signing, with trust eroding and emotions running high.

What Lies Ahead?

The future of the IWT now depends on several factors:

  • Will India continue to exercise "strategic restraint" or take punitive action through water control?
  • Will Pakistan provide credible steps to address India’s security concerns?
  • Can international mediators like the World Bank play a role in calming tensions?

Both nations must remember: the Indus Waters Treaty has not only ensured water security for millions—it has also prevented water wars in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

Conclusion

The Pahalgam attack has once again tested the resilience of the Indus Waters Treaty, dragging it from technical diplomacy into the center of a political storm. While emotions run high and national security remains paramount, the long-term solution lies in dialogue, diplomatic engagement, and a renewed commitment to peaceful coexistence.

Water should remain a bridge, not a battleground.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts