Suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty

Context:

On April 23, 2025, India suspended the IWT in response to a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, attributed to Pakistan-backed militants. This marks the first such action in the Treaty’s history and may significantly reshape regional geopolitics and hydropolitics.

Key accompanying diplomatic measures include:

Closure of the Attari land border post.
Cancellation of Pakistani visas.
Expulsion of Pakistani officials from India.

About the Indus Waters Treaty

The IWT was signed on September 19, 1960, in Karachi after nine years of negotiation. It includes 12 Articles and 8 Annexures (A to H) and allocates the river waters of the Indus basin between the two countries:

Eastern Rivers (Sutlej, Beas, Ravi): Allocated for India's unrestricted use.
Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab): Reserved primarily for Pakistan, with India permitted limited use for hydropower, navigation, and irrigation under strict design and operational constraints.

India Suspends Indus Waters Treaty After Pahalgam Attack, Marking Historic Shift In Indo-Pak Relations

Strategic Implications of the Suspension:

Cessation of Hydrological Data Sharing: India can stop the routine exchange of river flow data with Pakistan.
Autonomy in River Use: India may remove self-imposed restrictions on design and operations of projects on the Western Rivers.
Storage and Diversion: Though technically permissible under the Treaty to a limited extent, India may now pursue reservoir construction on Western Rivers, including Jhelum and Chenab.
Dam Management Freedom: India may conduct reservoir flushing at hydroelectric projects like Kishenganga to enhance longevity and efficiency.

Legal Dimensions:

The IWT lacks an exit clause, rendering unilateral withdrawal legally untenable. However, Article IX and Annexures F and G provide a dispute resolution mechanism, involving:

1. Permanent Indus Commission (PIC): The first level of bilateral engagement.

2. Neutral Expert: Appointed by the World Bank in cases of technical disagreements.

3. Court of Arbitration: For more complex or political disputes.

Yet, the efficacy of these mechanisms depends on both parties’ willingness to engage. In 2016, legal expert Ahmer Bilal Soofi noted that if India shuns the Treaty entirely, dispute mechanisms become ineffective. Furthermore, Pakistan is barred from filing a case against India at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) due to India’s reservations under the ICJ statute.

Recent Bilateral Actions under the IWT:

Tensions over two Indian hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir — the Kishenganga (on Jhelum tributary) and Ratle (on Chenab) — have intensified. Pakistan alleges that project designs violate IWT norms, despite their run-of-the-river classification.
In January 2023, India issued a formal notice to Pakistan citing Islamabad's intransigence, invoking Article XII(3) for possible Treaty modification. A second notice in September 2024 reiterated India's demand for review, signaling intent for potential renegotiation.
In January 2025, the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert, Michel Lino, ruled himself competent to adjudicate design disputes. India argued these fell squarely under Part I of Annexure F, while Pakistan contested their admissibility under this clause.

Conclusion:

India’s unprecedented suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty signals a strategic shift in response to terrorism. While immediate water impacts on Pakistan may be limited, the move carries significant diplomatic and legal implications, casting uncertainty over the future of South Asian water diplomacy.