From Rivers to Ruptures: The Indus Waters Treaty and the Wake of the Pahalgam Attack

In a region where rivers have long served as lifelines and boundaries, the (IWT) has stood as a rare beacon of cooperation between two historically antagonistic neighbors: India and Pakistan. For over six decades, this treaty has survived wars, political upheavals, and diplomatic freezes. However, the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians and injured 17 others, has once again brought Indo-Pak relations to the brink. In response, India has suspended cooperation under the Indus Waters Treaty—a move with far-reaching consequences not just for South Asia, but for international norms surrounding transboundary water sharing.

A Historic Accord Amid Hostility

Signed on September 19, 1960, by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan, the Indus Waters Treaty was brokered by the World Bank after years of negotiations. The treaty allocates the six rivers of the Indus River System between the two countries. India received exclusive rights over the eastern rivers—the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—while Pakistan retained control over the western rivers—the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.

The treaty also created a Permanent Indus Commission, a bilateral body responsible for the implementation and management of the accord. Despite three major wars (1965, 1971, and 1999) and countless skirmishes, the Indus Waters Treaty remained a symbol of pragmatic diplomacy, functioning independently of the tumultuous political landscape.

A Fragile Peace Shattered

On April 22, 2025, militants opened fire on a group of tourists in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, a scenic town in Jammu and Kashmir. The attackers, later identified as operatives of the militant group Kashmir Resistance—allegedly backed by Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen—claimed the assault was in retaliation to India’s perceived attempts to alter the region’s demographic composition.

The scale of the attack, which left 26 dead and 17 wounded, drew widespread condemnation. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed to pursue the perpetrators “to the ends of the Earth,” and within days, India suspended talks and cooperation under the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan, for its part, denied any involvement, calling India’s actions politically motivated.

Strategic Waters, Strategic Leverage

India’s decision to suspend treaty cooperation marks a significant shift in its approach to water diplomacy. For years, New Delhi has hinted at using water as a strategic tool, especially after the 2016 Uri attack. The suspension doesn’t mean India will immediately cut off water supplies to Pakistan, which would be a treaty violation and could spark international outrage. However, it allows India to halt communication, delay data-sharing, and reassess its existing and future hydroelectric projects on western rivers.

The strategic implications are clear: water, once a symbol of cooperation, is now a potential instrument of pressure. This suspension could also encourage India to accelerate storage projects on rivers like the Chenab and Jhelum, projects allowed under the treaty but often contested by Pakistan.

The Impact on Pakistan

Pakistan is heavily dependent on the Indus River system. Nearly 90% of its agriculture relies on these waters, particularly those from the western rivers. The country’s food security, rural employment, and even its drinking water supply are closely tied to uninterrupted river flow.

A pause in treaty cooperation raises significant alarm in Islamabad. Even if actual water flow remains unchanged for now, the uncertainty could disrupt planning for crop cycles, irrigation scheduling, and infrastructure development. Any long-term disruption could also exacerbate tensions in water-scarce regions of Pakistan, potentially leading to internal instability.

Moreover, the diplomatic fallout puts Pakistan on the defensive internationally. While the country has denied links to the Pahalgam attack, its past associations with cross-border terrorism weaken its case on the global stage.

A Treaty Tested, A Precedent Shaken

The Indus Waters Treaty has long been hailed as one of the most successful and durable water-sharing accords in the world. The World Bank, which played a central role in its creation, has often cited the IWT as a model for transboundary water cooperation. It has also served as an inspiration for treaties in other contentious regions.

India’s suspension of the treaty’s provisions does not nullify the treaty itself, but it does set a concerning precedent. If such a longstanding and resilient agreement can be paused in the wake of a terrorist attack, what does it mean for other water-sharing accords around the world? This question takes on added urgency in an era marked by climate change, growing water scarcity, and rising geopolitical tensions.

The Legal and Diplomatic Labyrinth

The legal ramifications of suspending the treaty are complex. Technically, the treaty does not have a built-in exit clause, and unilateral withdrawal would be difficult to justify under international law. However, by stalling cooperation, refusing to share data, and pausing meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission, India is leveraging the grey areas of the agreement.

This puts the World Bank in a difficult position. As a guarantor, it may be called upon to mediate, but its influence has waned in recent years. Both India and Pakistan have at times resisted third-party arbitration, preferring to manage issues bilaterally—when relations allow for it.

Regional Reactions and the Role of China

The crisis comes at a time when water geopolitics is gaining salience across Asia. China, which controls the headwaters of several major Asian rivers including the Brahmaputra, is watching closely. Any precedent set by India could be mirrored by China in its own disputes with India or downstream nations like Bangladesh.

Regional alliances also complicate the picture. India is likely to find support among its Quad partners (the U.S., Japan, Australia), especially given their shared concerns over terrorism and Chinese expansionism. Pakistan, meanwhile, may look to China and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for diplomatic backing.

Environmental Stakes and Human Costs

Beyond geopolitics, the environmental and humanitarian stakes are immense. The Indus River basin is home to over 300 million people. Disruption to water flows can damage fragile ecosystems, from the glaciers of Ladakh to the Indus Delta in southern Pakistan.

If India proceeds with new infrastructure projects or alters water flows, even within legal bounds, it may trigger environmental consequences such as reduced biodiversity, altered sediment transport, and declining groundwater recharge in Pakistan. For communities on both sides of the border, especially farmers and fisherfolk, the cost could be life-altering.

A Call for Calm and Diplomacy

The Pahalgam attack was a tragedy that demands justice. But using water—a shared and essential resource—as a weapon of statecraft risks deepening an already dangerous rift. Dialogue, however difficult, remains the only viable path forward.

Reinvigorating the Indus Waters Treaty with enhanced mechanisms for crisis management and third-party mediation could help insulate it from political shocks. The World Bank, perhaps in coordination with regional organizations, should push for an urgent reconvening of the Permanent Indus Commission.

Both India and Pakistan must also reckon with the reality that their futures are environmentally and economically intertwined. Water doesn’t recognize borders; neither should the solutions.

Conclusion

The Indus Waters Treaty has long been more than just a technical agreement; it has been a symbol of what is possible when diplomacy triumphs over discord. Its partial suspension in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack is a sobering reminder of how fragile peace can be in a volatile region.

As the waters of the Indus continue their ancient journey from the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea, they now carry with them not just silt and sustenance, but the heavy burden of geopolitics. It is up to the leaders on both sides to ensure that this river of life does not become a river of conflict.

Only through renewed commitment, international cooperation, and a willingness to engage in tough dialogue can the region hope to move from rivers to reconciliation, rather than from rivers to ruptures.