Mohd Yaseen
India suffered a ghastly terrorist massacre on April 22, 2025, in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir-a region famous for its beauty and tourism potential. Terrorists carefully targeted and fired at a group of carefree tourists consisting of both Indian nationals and foreign visitors, resulting in the killing of over 25 Indians and other foreign tourists. The country overall has now endured grief and is evolving into a policy change of determination, beginning with the drafting of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 is about to be ended.
This is not an emotional reaction. Instead, it is one born of a long legacy of threats along the border, cross national terrorism, and Pakistan’s ongoing asymmetrical war policy. The IWT was intended for tacit acceptance in terms of not withdrawn even interrupted wars in the region accompanied by destruction of diplomatic relations but now shall be addressed. It is evident India has given a one-way ticket to restraint and voluntarily made a blunt transition towards military boldness core of strategic policy established.
More than sixty years ago the World Bank brokered a treaty of two nations to divide the waters of the Indus River system: the Indus Waters Treaty. In favor of India, the treaty provided exclusive usage rights of the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej Rivers, and in Pakistan’s favor were given control rights over the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab Rivers. It was a textbook case of global diplomacy given that Indian land bordered the Western rivers to the north. The vast majority of detractors viewed it as a measure of excess hospitality by India.
Wars in 1965 and 1971, Kalig 1999 and several ceasefire agreements, alongside a constant stream of terrorism all put pressure on the treaty. Just like Pahalgam massacre and Uri and Pulwama terror attacks, India is often left asking- why is there a necessity for a treaty in times of violence?
For years now, India has not utilized the amount of water resources they are designated by the treaty. There were proposals to build infrastructure projects to divert water from the eastern rivers for drinking purposes, irrigation, as well as hydropower, but those proposals were never carried out because of bureaucratic hurdles and diplomatic issues. However, in 2016 and even more so in 2019, things changed. The Indian government vowed to utilize its IWT water allocation and reactivate dams Shahpur-Kandi and Ujh multipurpose as well as river integration schemes. The moral and strategic rationale from the Pahalgam attack allows India to seek mechanisms for legally circumventing the treaty, allowing them to investigate suspension or even termination.
Predictably, Pakistan retaliated by blaming India for weaponized water as an international violation. What is significant here is that treaties in the past have been built on the concept of mutual respect and good faith. When a nation like Pakistan uses terrorism as a state instrument, it drifts away from the moral grounds needed to expect accommodation in reciprocation. The very premise of the IWT is a peaceful coexistence which is relentlessly negated by the actions of Pakistan.
In accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, India has a right to plead fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus) as grounds for renegotiating or even entirely suspending a treaty. The modern situation where Pakistan fails to act against terror groups operating from its soil and actively targeting Indian citizens is a violation of the foundation hypothesis of the IWT. India has already begun diplomatic signaling, indicating that it is moving towards a position where it cannot guarantee compliance with a treaty when its national security interests are at stake.
Critics argue that such a move could trigger a humanitarian disaster in Pakistan, which itself is experiencing extreme water scarcity and depends on the Indus river system for farm, industrial, and drinking water. Yes, this is a valid perspective, but one has to juxtapose it with the harsher reality that water from Indian rivers cannot be permitted to feed a nation that promotes terrorism against Indian citizens. India has been mature and restrained for decades; when all such goodwill is responded to with violence, it becomes not only reasonable but necessary to reexamine all bilateral agreements.
Also, in addition to economic gains, huge domestic benefits accrue to India in optimizing the use of its entitlement. Large parts of India like Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Haryana, and Rajasthan continue to be water-deficient. By rechanneling water into these parts, India can make its agricultural industry more stable, enhance rural development, and reduce dependence on whimsical monsoon regimes. It also helps India to generate further clean energy from hydropower, which is a sustainable and pollution-free source of energy.
The step also indicates the growing strategic autonomy of India. In a world where water is emerging as a major geopolitical asset, it is important that India defends its water rights. The step signals a new era in Indian foreign policy, one that advocates for the national interest unapologetically. It is not a hostile step but one of self-defence. No nation can be bountiful at a moment when its largesse is utilized to finance acts of terrorism against its own people.
The responses of the global community have been mixed. Some countries and organizations have called for restraint, but others acknowledge India’s legitimate right to protect its national interest. The World Bank, which facilitated the original treaty, has stayed thus far neutral but may again have a role if the matter is pursued as an international dispute. India appears to be prepared, however, to stand firm, diplomatically and legally.
Strategically, the move will test Pakistan’s commitment and force it to re-examine the cost of maintaining its support for militancy. If Pakistan chooses to cooperate and dialogue instead of confrontation, new terms of engagement might be negotiated, possibly with stricter scrutiny and terms. But if it continues the path of provocation, it will have to suffer the products of its alienation and resource dependency.
The Pahalgam attack was a national trauma. But it has been a watershed, a moment of clarity. The message from India is now clear: treaties and terrorism cannot coexist. Peace cannot be a one-way street, and water cannot be a gift that nourishes hostility.
The way forward is not straightforward. Legal action, international arbitration, and diplomatic pressure will follow. But India’s determination to protect its people and resources cannot be shaken. This is not simply a matter of water, it is a matter of sovereignty, security, and survival.
India is now moving towards a new phase where national interest dictates foreign engagement. And in this phase, the Indus Waters Treaty, which was once a symbol of friendship, might ultimately reflect the ground reality: cooperation cannot occur without responsibility.
(The writer is a National scholarship and Fellowship holder in the field of Theatre from Ministry of Culture, Government of India)