-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
The suspension of the Indus Water Treaty underscores that agreements on transboundary cooperation, however enduring, remain vulnerable when national security concerns take over.
.jpg)
Image Source: Getty
Putting an end to escalating military hostilities, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on 10 May 2025 – but India upheld its decision to suspend the Indus Water Treaty (IWT). One month since its announcement, the suspension marks a substantial shift in India’s long-standing policy of ‘de-linking’ water from security issues. The IWT has been touted as a successful transboundary agreement, given its survival despite major conflicts between the parties. However, bilateral agreements rely heavily on mutual goodwill – parties have the scope to use a ‘strategic pause’ as a tool for deterrence or posturing. India’s abeyance of the IWT underscores the dependence of treaty compliance on geopolitical considerations with implications for international governance frameworks.
Bilateral agreements rely heavily on mutual goodwill – parties have the scope for using ‘strategic pause’ as a tool for deterrence or posturing.
In the aftermath of the terror attack in Pahalgam, India announced a series of countermeasures, including placing the IWT “in abeyance with immediate effect”. Brokered by the World Bank in 1960, the IWT withstood the test of time and served as a testament to successful diplomacy. Suspending the treaty as a response marks a sharp shift in approach – India recognises the significance of IWT for Pakistan and has linked the treaty’s future to its policy of ‘zero tolerance’ towards terrorism.
India’s call for abeyance of the IWT underscores the dependence of treaty compliance on geopolitical considerations with implications for international governance frameworks.
The effects of suspending the treaty might not be evident in the short run – yet the IWT remains crucial for Pakistan. The geographical partition of the subcontinent resulted in a physically asymmetric hydrological divide – as the upper riparian nation, India controls access to the river headwaters. Pakistan, as the lower riparian, is heavily reliant on the Indus system, which accounts for nearly 80 percent of its agricultural needs and 93 percent of its total water use. India currently does not possess the infrastructural capacity to redirect the flow of river water – the IWT barred India from constructing any storage dams. Nonetheless, Pakistan still faces the risk of excessive flooding and water shortages if India chooses to expand its hydroelectric capacity along its western rivers. In a recent interview, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar stressed that the “ceasefire was under threat” if the “water issue” was not resolved in the upcoming talks.
Bilateral treaties are based on the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda – treaty obligations must be fulfilled in good faith. But the principle does not exist in absolute terms – as geopolitical realities take precedence, the pursuit of national interest often supersedes treaty obligations, particularly when a state’s security apparatus is violated. India’s decision to put the treaty on pause is a tactical move that does not violate international norms – it has neither abrogated the treaty nor undertaken any kinetic measures that breach its clauses. The move is aimed at ceasing cooperation as a countermeasure to Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism and provides India with leverage at the negotiating table.
India has taken a tough stand by suspending the treaty, but it is aware of the perils of outright breakdown of the agreement and the securitisation of a non-traditional resource such as water.
The IWT is a bilateral mechanism built on nuanced political compromise for the management of a shared resource. While the treaty was brokered by a third party – the World Bank – it is not governed by any international maritime law. Article 9 of the IWT does refer to the establishment of dispute resolution bodies – the Permanent Indus Commission, a Neutral Expert, and a Court of Arbitration. However, the focus of agreements such as IWT has been on fostering cooperation and information exchange, rather than establishing enforceable compliance mechanisms.
While India has pursued the suspension as a conditional bargaining tool, it does not seek to set a precedent for withholding treaties or disregarding international norms.
International mediation can achieve little in settling transboundary disputes, often rendering them primarily bilateral undertakings. For instance, in the case of Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, both countries disagree on whether the technical design of the power plant contravenes the treaty. They are also at loggerheads over the arbitration procedure to be adopted for dispute resolution. In a recent statement, World Bank President Ajay Banga clarified that the bank’s role was “limited to be(ing) a facilitator and it will not step in to resolve the current dispute”.
India had the leeway to suspend the IWT without violating any international laws, and it had been signalling towards the possibility of using the ‘pause’ as a strategic response to cross-border terrorism. While placing the treaty in abeyance certainly impacts the bilateral relationship between the two countries, it also carries broader international ramifications for the governance of shared resources. Though not codified, international water law is underpinned by basic principles and norms that guide states in negotiating mutually agreeable terms for the sharing of common water sources. The threat of the ‘weaponisation’ of water and the pressing need for transboundary cooperation have prompted agreements even in some of the world’s most contested river basins, such as the Mekong and the Nile.
India had the leeway to suspend the IWT without violating any international laws, and it had been signalling towards the possibility of using the ‘pause’ as a strategic response to cross-border terrorism.
India has taken a tough stand by suspending the treaty, but it remains mindful of the risks associated with the outright breakdown of the agreement and the securitisation of a resource such as water. While India has pursued the suspension as a conditional bargaining tool, it does not seek to set a precedent for withholding treaties or disregarding international norms— particularly given shared water resources with other neighbours in the region. The temporary halt reflects a firm stance, but also signals nuanced restraint, leaving open the possibility of a return to the status quo through effective bilateral dialogue. However, any meaningful dialogue in the near future will depend on Pakistan’s ability to abjure its support for cross-border terrorism.
Heena Makhija is an Associate Fellow with the Economy and Growth Programme at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Makhija is an Associate Fellow with ORF’s Economy and Growth Programme. She specializes in the study of International Organizations, Multilateralism, Global Norms, India at ...
Read More +
PREV
