by Abdul Haq
After decades of successful water diplomacy – the India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty in the wake of the tragic Pahalgam terrorist attack – is a dangerous escalation that creates a disturbing precedent for international law. The ensuing four-day military confrontation between the two immediate neighbours holding nukes shows how easily waterdisputes can turn into existentialthreats to regional peace and stability.
The Collapse of Diplomatic Success Story
The Indus Waters Treaty, which was signed on September 19, 1960, by Pakistani President Ayub Khan and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, has long been regarded as one of the most effective water-sharing agreements in history. The treaty, which was mediated by the World Bank, lasts for more than 60 years despite numerous wars, acts of terrorism, and political upheavals between India and Pakistan. The deal gave India sovereignty over three rivers in the east (Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej) and granted Pakistan rights over three rivers in the west (Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum). India would receive 30% of the total water flow, while Pakistan would receive 70%.
Nevertheless, India made the historic decision to suspend the treaty on April 23, 2025, a day after the horrifying Pahalgam terrorist attack that killed 26 innocent people, claiming “national security concerns and alleging Pakistan’s support of state-sponsored terrorism.” This unilateral move ruined what many saw as an unbreakable diplomatic achievement, as it was the first time either nation had fully suspended the agreement since its creation.
There are significant concerns regarding the weaponization of water resources given the timing and character of India’s decision. Linking this tragedy to water rights is a risky conflation of environmental warfare and counterterrorism, even though the Pahalgam attack was unquestionably a horrific act of terrorism that targeted Hindu tourists based on their religious identity. The international community correctly denounced the attack, which was carried out by five armed militants who methodically targeted and murdered Hindu men while coercing others into reciting Islamic verses although a true Muslim will never intend to kill someone cold-blooded. However, it is unacceptable for any country that depends on transboundary water agreements to use this incident as justification for suspending a treaty that impacts the livelihoods of millions of people on both sides of the border.
From Water Disputes to Military Conflict
As diplomatic tensions turned into a four-day military conflict from May 7–10, 2025, the devastating effects of India’s unilateral action became evident. This battle was the first time in Indo-Pakistani military history that India had used cruise missiles, such as the BrahMos and European SCALP-EG systems, against Pakistan; Pakistan had used conventionally armed short-range ballistic missiles, such as the Fatah-I and Fatah-II, against India; and the two countries had engaged in drone warfare with the intention of causing destruction.
In addition to exposing Pakistan’s susceptibility to Indian air power despite some successful interception attempts, the conflict showed India’s ability to deliver “precise standoff attacks across large swathes of Pakistan.” Even more concerning is the fact that, despite the fact that these nuclear-armed neighbours were involved in the most serious military conflict in decades, neither side crossed international borders with manned aircraft, demonstrating how seriously both countries took the escalation risk.
It is clear from this development from treaty suspension to military conflict why there are strong dispute resolution mechanisms in place for international water agreements. In order to stop such escalations, the Indus Waters Treaty contained clauses pertaining to a Permanent Indus Commission and World Bank arbitration. In addition to breaching its treaty obligations, India’s decision to stop using these diplomatic channels eliminated the safeguards intended to manage water-related tensions.
The Dangerous Precedents and Violations of International Law
In several ways, India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty is a grave breach of international law. First, it violates the core tenet of international treaty law ‘pacta sunt servanda’ which states that agreements must be upheld. Only in extreme situations is suspension permitted by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which also mandates appropriate notification and consultation processes, neither of which were adhered to in this instance. Second, the action is against customary international water law, specifically the principle of reasonable and equitable use of shared water resources. According to the International Court of Justice, unilateral actions that impact transboundary waters without consultation are always considered violations of international obligations. India may have an impact on Pakistan’s access to water resources that provide for more than 200 million people if the treaty is suspended, which would raise grave humanitarian concerns.
Mostly emphasise – by connecting terrorism to water rights – India sets a risky precedent that other countries with security issues may take advantage of it. The basis of international water cooperation becomes seriously unstable if nations have the authority to unilaterally halt water treaties by citing national security concerns. Billions of people who depend on transboundary water resources may be impacted if upstream countries around the world follow this precedent.
Perhaps because of the sympathy for India after the terrorist attack, the international community’s response has been noticeably subdued. Notwithstanding their bilateral ties with India and Pakistan, all countries should be concerned about the normalisation of the weaponization of water resources, which is what this silence runs the risk of doing. Since water security is becoming more widely acknowledged as a basic human right, permitting its politicisation puts global water governance on a precarious path.
The Way Forward: Choosing Diplomacy Over Division
Pakistan’s trade restrictions and airspace closures are a predictable form of retaliation, but before things worsen, attention needs to be directed towards a diplomatic resolution of this prevailing crises. To facilitate communication between the two countries, the international community – especially the World Bank, which served as the original treaty mediator – must take the initiative.
A number of quick actions are required: First, India should re-evaluate its decision to suspend the treaty and go back to the IWT framework’s established dispute resolution procedures. Second, both countries must acknowledge that water management and counterterrorism cooperation are distinct diplomatic domains, even though they are both crucial. Third, while addressing valid security concerns through the proper channels, international mediators should help to facilitate emergency talks to stop further military escalation.
Both countries understood that water cooperation was too vital to forego for political reasons, which is why the Indus Waters Treaty withstood the Kargil conflict, the 1965 and 1971 wars, and multiple acts of terrorism. India proved the wisdom of keeping crucial humanitarian concerns apart from political disputes during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani war by continuing to provide water and make yearly payments in accordance with treaty agreements.
Conclusion: Ensuring Future of Water Diplomacy
Beyond just a bilateral disagreement between India and Pakistan, the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty poses an existential threat to the foundation of global water cooperation. Strong, legally binding agreements on transboundary water resources are more important than ever as climate change makes the world’s water shortage worse.
Although India’s decision makes sense in the emotional wake of a terrorist attack, it sets a precedent that could undo decades of advancements in international water law. The ensuing four-day war serves as a stark reminder of the disastrous consequences of associating security issues with water resources. Both countries need to understand that their shared rivers are more than just a political issue; they are essential to the survival of their peoples.
The collapse of one of the most effective water treaties in the world cannot be tolerated by the international community. Tomorrow, river basins in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America will be affected by the precedent being set in South Asia today. Restoring the Indus Waters Treaty and firmly rejecting the risky precedent of weaponizing water resources are essential for regional stability and global water security.
India and Pakistan have a pure choice: either they go back to the negotiating table and fulfil their treaty obligations, or they run the risk of using the rivers of South Asia as weapons in the ongoing conflict… The future of water diplomacy is at stake, and the entire world is watching (!).
Author: Abdul Haq holds an MS degree in International Relations from the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Jilin University, the People’s Republic of China and also hold an MA degree in Political Science from the Department of Political Science, University of Peshawar, Pakistan. He writes on global issues, international politics, International Law, Peace, Conflict, and Security studies, and has contributed to Modern Diplomacy and The Diplomatic Insight. He can be reached at ahsafi.edu@gmail.com.
This article reflects the author’s own opinions and not necessarily the views of Global Connectivities.
