Water, war and whispers: Why Indus treaty isn’t drying up soon

India: suspending the flow or spinning the blame?

NEWS ANALYSIS

April 24, 2025

INDIA’s recent decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty has caused ripples in the region as well as across the globe. While the move is portrayed as a strong response to a deadly attack in Occupied Kashmir, it is important to separate rhetoric from reality. The fact is, the impact of suspending the treaty will not be immediate. Nor is there clarity on whether Pakistan was actually behind the attack, as claimed by India.

For all the talk of retaliation, India’s decision to put the treaty in abeyance does not — at least for now — translate into an immediate stoppage of water to Pakistan. India lacks the necessary infrastructure to control or divert the flow of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers in any significant way. Experts suggest the most New Delhi can do in the short term is reduce flow by five to ten per cent — far from the dramatic images conjured up by some headlines.  

The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, facilitated by the World Bank, granted Pakistan rights to three western rivers of the Indus Basin, while India retained control over the eastern ones. However, the treaty also allowed India to construct "run-of-the-river" hydroelectric projects on the western rivers — meaning it could harness power without significantly altering their flow.

India has used this clause over decades, with several projects drawing objections from Pakistan. What has changed now is India’s signal that it may no longer abide by those constraints. With the treaty effectively on hold, New Delhi might choose to build reservoir dams — something explicitly barred under the agreement.

Still, that is easier said than done. Constructing large dams capable of storing and controlling water is a massive undertaking. It would require detailed surveys, significant funding, and time — perhaps a decade — to become operational. Environmental clearances and local opposition would also be inevitable, further slowing progress.

This is why India’s move should be read more as a political gesture than a strategic water policy. It sends a message — but doesn't yet change the facts on the ground. That message appears aimed squarely at Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack, which left over two dozen dead and tensions soaring.

But the narrative needs to be approached with caution. Indian officials were quick to suggest a cross-border link to the violence, hinting at Pakistan’s complicity. However, no definitive evidence has been presented. Occupied Kashmir has long hosted armed groups, many of which are local and not necessarily directed by foreign handlers. Analysts and even some Indian security sources acknowledge that the trend of home-grown militancy complicates efforts to assign blame across the border.

The danger lies in jumping to conclusions — especially when such conclusions justify far-reaching policy decisions like suspending a decades-old water-sharing agreement. The Indus Waters Treaty had withstood wars, political upheavals, and diplomatic breakdowns — it was seen as a rare example of functional cooperation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

By stepping away, even symbolically, India introduces a new variable into an already complex relationship. For Pakistan, the concern is not just about reduced water flow today, but long-term risks to water security. The Indus system is the lifeline vis-à-vis its agricultural, drinking water, and energy needs. Any erosion of the treaty’s guarantees, even over time, could have serious repercussions.

Meanwhile, India argues its goodwill gestures haven’t been reciprocated, and that its development ambitions are unfairly constrained by the treaty’s technical limits. Domestic political pressure is also growing on Narendra Modi’s government to respond forcefully to any act of violence in Occupied Kashmir, regardless of responsibility.

That makes it all the more important to deal in facts rather than assumptions. If the Pahalgam attack was indeed the work of local militants — frustrated with conditions and unaffiliated with any state actor — then framing it as a cross-border provocation could be dangerously misleading.

That is precisely why the international community, including the World Bank as the treaty’s guarantor, may need to step in and urge restraint. Water is too vital — too central to millions — to be wielded as a pressure tool based on incomplete or convenient narratives.

For now, the rivers are flowing. But with the treaty suspended and fingers pointed without conclusive proof, the situation calls for calm heads, not knee-jerk decisions. The long-term stakes — ecological, economic, and geopolitical — are far too high for anything else.