Rajesh Jain, senior journalist
The Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan on 19 September 1960 was long considered one of the world’s most successful international water agreements. This treaty remained in place for six decades despite three wars, Kargil conflict, Parliament attack, Mumbai attack and continuous tension between the two countries, but after the Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir in April 2025, India for the first time decided to suspend this treaty and gave a clear message that terrorism and normal bilateral relations can no longer go together.
In such a situation, this dispute is no longer limited to the distribution of water only. Many dimensions like national security, diplomacy, international law, water resources and future politics of South Asia have been added to it. Recently, the Indus Water Treaty is once again in the news after the sharp reactions of Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and PPP leader Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.
The Indus River System consists of six major rivers – the Indus, the Jhelum, the Chenab, the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej. The catchment area of these rivers extends to India, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan and the livelihood of crores of people depends on them. After the partition of 1947, a dispute started between the two countries regarding sharing of water.
The situation became critical after India temporarily stopped the water of some canals in 1948. To resolve this, the World Bank mediated and after long negotiations of about nine years, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan President Ayub Khan signed the Indus Water Treaty in Karachi in 1960.
Under this agreement, the use of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej went to India, while most of the water use of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab went to Pakistan. About 80 percent of the total water flow went to Pakistan and about 20 percent to India. This is the reason why the question kept arising from time to time in India was that despite being an upper stream country, why did it show relatively more generosity?
The common perception is that India only released water, whereas the reality is much broader than this. India gave most of the water use of western rivers to Pakistan and also provided financial assistance in the development of its irrigation infrastructure. In return, India got the right to build limited irrigation, domestic use and hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, but not the right to stop the natural flow of water. Under the treaty, the Permanent Indus Commission was formed, through which both the countries held regular meetings, shared information about projects and tried to resolve disputes through negotiations. This arrangement remained the biggest strength of this treaty for six decades.
Over the last three decades, terrorist attacks like Uri, Pathankot, Pulwama and Pahalgam have continuously raised India’s security concerns. India says that Pakistan supports cross-border terrorism and on the other hand also takes advantage of international agreements. After the Pahalgam attack, the Indian government clearly said for the first time that terrorism and cooperation cannot go together. After this, steps were taken like suspending the Indus Water Treaty, banning the exchange of water related information and closing joint meetings. India also made it clear that this policy will continue until Pakistan takes credible and sustained action against terrorism.
About 80 percent of Pakistan’s agriculture depends on the Indus River system. Agriculture, food grain production and livelihood of crores of people in Punjab and Sindh provinces are based on this water. The reality is also that India currently does not have enough storage capacity to stop the entire water flow of the western rivers for a long time, hence the current strategy is not to stop the water, but to postpone the administrative and technical facilities provided under the treaty.
Pakistan says that the Indus Water Treaty is an international agreement, which cannot be suspended unilaterally by any party. On the other hand, India argues that the foundation of any bilateral agreement rests on mutual trust. If one side continues to promote terrorism and challenge the security of the other country, this can be considered a fundamental change in circumstances. India says that national security is the top priority of any country and in such a situation it is its right to reconsider the available legal and strategic options. This is the basis of India’s current diplomatic argument.
Comments are closed.