What India’s Indus treaty suspension really means

The Hindu Kush–Himalaya–Karakoram mountain range—often referred to as the “Third Pole” due to its vast glacial reserves—acts as a critical freshwater source for people in South Asia, especially in India and Pakistan. 

These ice reserves feed into rivers that flow downstream to India and Pakistan, sustaining the ecosystems, agriculture and domestic water needs of both nations. However, with the rapidly accelerating impacts of climate change, this region has become increasingly vulnerable.

According to studies comparing the periods 2000–2009 and 2010–2019, the rate of glacial melt has increased by 65%, resulting in increased water availability in the short term, but posing serious long-term risks of water scarcity and erratic flow regimes.

For Pakistan, the stakes could not be higher. The country’s economy remains largely agrarian, and attempts to diversify into industrial sectors have been undermined by low foreign direct investment, persistent political instability and deteriorating security conditions.

Consequently, the agricultural sector—heavily reliant on the Indus River system—continues to support the majority of livelihoods. Farmers and smallholder agribusinesses are highly dependent on both canal irrigation and groundwater extraction.

However, in many areas, groundwater is being extracted at unsustainable rates, with aquifers showing alarming levels of depletion. The continued over-extraction threatens not only future water availability but also the long-term sustainability of the country’s agriculture.

In this context, India’s recent decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in “abeyance” has raised alarm bells in Pakistan, with officials in Islamabad declaring the suspension an “act of war.” The feasibility of such a suspension, and more importantly, its consequences, must be assessed in detail, starting with the provisions of the treaty itself.

Signed in 1960 between President Ayub and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, the treaty explicitly gave the waters of the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) to Pakistan and the eastern rivers’ waters (Ravi, Sutlej, Beas) to India. Essentially, the treaty resulted in the allocation of 20% of the Indus River system water to India while 80% went to Pakistan.

While India is entitled to use its full share of water, about 2 million acre-feet of water remains unutilized from the River Ravi, flowing into Pakistan. Four of the six rivers (Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas) originate entirely in India, while two rivers (Indus and Sutlej) originate in Tibet but flow through India before entering Pakistan.

This geographic control gives India an upper riparian position, which is one of the reasons why Pakistan has had concerns about India’s upstream control. Pakistan is obligated to let the waters of the Sutlej and Ravi rivers flow freely before they enter Pakistan’s territory.

Pakistan cannot divert these waters in the reaches before the rivers have finally crossed into Pakistan. In other words, even though these rivers may pass through parts of Pakistan, if they haven’t officially entered the country, Pakistan cannot extract water for large-scale irrigation or storage.

Once these tributaries enter Pakistan’s territory, any tributary that joins afterwards becomes Pakistan’s unrestricted water source, and if Pakistan adds any water from such tributaries upstream before the final crossing, India cannot use that water, and both countries are mandated to record flows.

For the waters of Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, Pakistan has full unrestricted rights to use the water, and India is legally bound to let these waters flow freely to Pakistan without any diversion or interruption. As for Pakistan, India is not allowed to interfere with the flow of western rivers, except for the part that is within the Indian side of the river’s drainage basin.

According to the treaty, both sides can use rivers for non-consumptive purposes, but they must not alter the flow in ways that would harm the other country’s legal usage.

However, both countries are allowed to engage in activities such as drainage work, riverbank reinforcement, dredging, erosion control and removing gravel, stones and sand, so long as it’s done in a way that does not cause harm to the other country.  

As of now, what India has hinted at with its suspension statement is “interference” with the waters. According to the treaty, interference is any man-made obstruction to the flow of water which can change the volume of daily flow of water into the countries; however, this obstruction can only involve an insignificant and incidental change due to fluctuation such as bridge piers or temporary bypass.

Moreover, a detailed resolution mechanism is in place in case a problem arises in the terms of the treaty. Even a factual disagreement can indicate a violation, and in that case, the first step is for the Indus Waters Commission to investigate the matter.

If the disagreement becomes a difference, then each of the commissioners can dispatch the issue to be handled by a neutral expert. If the issue doesn’t qualify under the neutral expert’s jurisdiction or if the issue doesn’t qualify under the treaty’s “Neutral” expert’s jurisdiction, then the matter is considered a policy-related matter and is escalated to a full dispute.

If the dispute has been identified, either commissioner can ask the commission to report the dispute to both governments, and the report must include points where the commissioners agree, points of disagreement, and the positions and reasoning of each commissioner. They then follow bilateral negotiations between governments, where each of the parties must name their negotiators and propose a time and place to meet.

A court of arbitration can be established as a final resolution mechanism in three possible ways (mutual agreement between the two governments, unilateral request by one government after bilateral negotiations have started, but the party believes that the dispute won’t be resolved this way, and unilateral request if the invited party doesn’t respond or delays negotiations for more than a month.)

India’s recent strong statement on suspending the Indus Waters Treaty—and its use of the term “abeyance”—could significantly damage the country’s international standing.

The treaty contains no provision that allows it to be held in abeyance, and any unilateral suspension would constitute a potential breach of international law. Such an action could undermine India’s reputation as a reliable and law-abiding partner in global agreements.

It is important to emphasize that formal mechanisms must be followed when altering or withdrawing from treaties; a mere verbal declaration is neither sufficient nor legitimate.

While this declaration has raised concerns about water availability in Pakistan, its practical implementation is far more complex. Although India holds an upper-riparian advantage, reducing or diverting river flows during the upcoming monsoon season is neither rational nor feasible.

The intense water volume and flow velocity during this period, combined with the wide riverbeds, make diversion operations technically challenging and risky. Any diverted water could inundate Indian territory, causing unintended flooding.

However, if India proceeds with such actions, the impact would be more pronounced during the winter season, when river flows are already at their lowest and Pakistan’s dependence on irrigation peaks.

Despite the questionable feasibility of India’s plan, the situation should serve as a wake-up call for Pakistani policymakers to reassess the country’s internal water management strategies.

First, it underscores the urgent need for improved water conservation mechanisms and a reduction in the rampant overuse of both surface and groundwater resources. Groundwater extraction, in particular, has reached unsustainable levels, exacerbated by weak regulatory oversight.

Surface water is also poorly managed; vast quantities are lost to evaporation from open canals during the summer months due to inadequate infrastructure and the absence of lining in the irrigation system.

Furthermore, substantial water is wasted during floods, highlighting the need for better water storage and flood management systems. In addition, Pakistan’s economy remains heavily reliant on agriculture, a sector that is particularly water-intensive.

To alleviate pressure on water resources, greater investment is needed to diversify the economy and expand industrial sectors. While industries do consume water, they are better equipped to use treated wastewater, unlike agriculture, where untreated or recycled water raises significant health and safety concerns.

The writer served as a research officer at the World Wildlife Fund