What happens when a treaty once celebrated as a hallmark of peace becomes the focal point of escalating tensions between two hostile neighbours?

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a landmark agreement brokered by the World Bank in 1960, has long been hailed as a model for water-sharing between rival nations. Despite enduring multiple wars and persistent hostilities, the treaty has provided a framework for cooperation in between India and Pakistan over shared river resources.

However, recent occurrence of geopolitical in the month of April, 2025 have led India to suspend its long participation in the IWT, marking an unprecedented crisis in South Asian water diplomacy. This article delves into the legal implications of this decision by the Indian Authorities, analyzing its compatibility with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) and related provisions of the IWT itself.

It further examines the geopolitical ramifications, including heightened regional instability and the risk of water insecurity in Pakistan. Additionally, the environmental and humanitarian consequences of disrupting established water-sharing mechanisms are explored. By highlighting the intersection of international law, diplomacy, and environmental sustainability, this article underscores the urgent need for a cooperative and legally sound resolution to safeguard regional stability and peace.

Introduction
For over six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has withstood the test of time, serving as a rare symbol of cooperation between two nuclear-armed adversaries. Yet, in a sudden turn of recent events, India's decision to suspend its participation citing national security concerns and escalating cross-border hostilities, threatens to unravel this fragile equilibrium.

This particular move not only risks dismantling a long-standing agreement but also raises paramount questions about the role of international law in managing natural resources and resolving conflicts. Signed in 1960 under World Bank mediation, the treaty then allocated control of six rivers between India and Pakistan, ensuring water security for millions.

However, the political currents of the treaty have always mirrored the hostility between the nations facing an unprecedented challenge. This article seeks to inspect the legal, geopolitical, and environmental implications of India's suspension of the IWT. First, it explores the legality of India's actions under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) and the dispute resolution mechanisms enshrined in the treaty itself.

Second, it assesses the broader ramifications for South Asian stability, particularly the potential impact on Pakistan's water security. Finally, the article considers the environmental and humanitarian consequences of disrupting established water-sharing arrangements. By analyzing the intersection of law, diplomacy, and regional geopolitics, this article aims to shed light on the critical importance of maintaining cooperative frameworks for shared natural resources.

Historical Background Of The Indus Water Treaty (IWT)

The Indus water Treaty of 1960, stands as a rare and quintessential symbol of international cooperation amidst conflict. Brokered by the World Bank, it was designed to resolve contentious issue between India and Pakistan- the sharing of the waters of the Indus River system, one of the most critical water sources in South Asia. The treaty was a product of years of tension following the partition of British India in 1947, during which the newly drawn borders created complex disputes over water resources.

1. Origins and Need of the IWT.
   The rivers of the Indus Basin, comprising the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej, were central to the agricultural economies of both India and Pakistan. After the partition, these rivers were divided between the two countries, with the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) assigned to Pakistan and the eastern rivers (Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej) assigned to India[1]. However, tensions soon arose, as both countries sought control over the water resources vital to their economies.
   
   Water scarcity was a pressing concern, particularly for Pakistan, which was heavily dependent on the western rivers for irrigation and drinking water. In the early 1950s, the two countries were engaged in several rounds of negotiations, but the situation remained perilous, especially after India began building dams on the rivers allocated to Pakistan.
   
   As disputes threatened to escalate into open conflict, the World Bank had to step in, offering its aid to mediate and facilitate an agreement that would ensure a fair and sustainable water distribution. India was permitted to use the waters of the eastern rivers for irrigation, power generation, and other purposes, while Pakistan retained full control over the western rivers. However, India was restricted from building large-scale dams on these western rivers without consulting Pakistan[2].
   
   The treaty established several institutional mechanisms for resolving conflicts and managing water usage, notably the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), which serves as a bilateral forum for resolving disagreements. The commission consists of representatives from both countries and plays a vital role in monitoring and regulating the treaty's provisions. The treaty also provides for Neutral Experts to be appointed in the event of technical disputes, and, in extreme cases, the issue can be taken to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).[3]
    
2. The Treaty's Resilience Amid Conflict
   The IWT has endured despite wars and ongoing political conflicts between India and Pakistan. Even during the wars of 1965 and 1971, both countries continued to honor the treaty, albeit with certain exceptions, showing a rare instance of diplomacy in a volatile region. The IWT has been widely recognized as a significant achievement in international law, illustrating that even in times of heightened political tensions, effective water management and conflict resolution are possible. In subsequent years, the treaty continued to provide a structure for bilateral cooperation on water issues.
   
   India and Pakistan have often utilized the Permanent Indus Commission to address concerns, though occasional disputes- particularly over dam construction- have occasionally threatened its stability. Nevertheless, the treaty has stood the test of time and remains a cornerstone of India-Pakistan relations, providing a legal framework through which both countries can engage in dialogue and cooperation on water-related issues.

The Current Crisis:
The suspension of India's participation in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), marks a watershed moment in the history of the agreement, signaling a significant dramatic escalation in the already strained relationship between India and Pakistan. This section will examine the immediate triggers, the rationale behind India's decision, and the reactions it has elicited both regionally and internationally.

1. India's Decision: Rationale and Strategy
   • India's move to suspend participation in the IWT is seen as a significant departure from its previous approach to the treaty. The decision has been justified by Indian officials on the following grounds:
     1. National Security Concerns:
        India has argued that it cannot continue to honor an agreement with a nation it accuses of fostering cross-border terrorism.
     2. Strategic Leverage:
        By signaling its willingness to suspend or renegotiate the treaty, India seeks to pressure Pakistan into curbing militant activities and engaging in constructive dialogue on broader bilateral issues.
     3. Domestic Political Pressure:
        The move also reflects domestic political considerations, as the Indian government faces public and parliamentary demands for a tougher stance against Pakistan.
         
2. Reactions from Pakistan
   • Pakistan has reacted strongly to India's decision, describing the suspension of the treaty as a violation of international law and an attempt to destabilize the region. The country's officials have raised the following concerns:
     1. Water Security:
        Pakistan heavily depends on the western rivers allocated under the treaty for its agricultural and drinking water needs. Any disruption in the water flow would have catastrophic implications for its economy and food security.
     2. Legal and Diplomatic Response:
        Pakistan has vowed to take the matter to international forums, including the World Bank, which brokered the treaty, and possibly the United Nations.
     3. Escalation of Hostilities:
        Pakistani leaders have warned that India's actions could escalate tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations, leading to further instability in South Asia.
         
3. Significance of the Crisis
   • India's decision to suspend the International Whaling Treaty underscores the vulnerability of international treaties in the context of escalating political tensions. This action prompts critical reflections on the significance of bilateral agreements in fostering peace and stability, particularly in regions plagued by long-standing hostility. Furthermore, it emphasizes the imperative for enhanced mechanisms to safeguard vital resources such as water from being exploited in geopolitical disputes.

Legal Analysis:
The decision by India to suspend its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) raises complex legal questions about the sanctity of international agreements, the rights of signatories under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), and the dispute resolution mechanisms available under the treaty. This section explores these legal dimensions to determine whether India's action is permissible under international law and the specific provisions of the IWT.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)[4], signed in 1969, is the primary international legal framework that governs the creation, interpretation, and termination of treaties between states. The VCLT and the principles of international water law emphasize the importance of equitable and reasonable utilization of shared water resources[5]. The VCLT sets out the rules regarding how treaties should be conducted, amended, or dissolved.

Some key provisions of the Convention are highly relevant to this crisis:

• Article 2 - Definition of a Treaty:
  The VCLT defines a treaty as an international agreement, concluded between states in written form and governed by international law. The Indus Waters Treaty clearly qualifies as a treaty under this definition.
   
• Article 60 - Termination or Suspension of a Treaty:
  This article addresses the suspension or termination of treaties and the legal grounds under which a state can invoke such actions. It states that a treaty can only be suspended or terminated if there has been a "material breach" of the treaty by another party or if such an action is justified by the treaty itself or by international law. The VCLT also provides for suspension if a state's fundamental rights under the treaty are compromised.
  
  Application to India's Suspension:
  India justifies its decision to suspend the IWT based on national security concerns, following Pakistan's alleged involvement in cross-border terrorism. India argues that Pakistan's actions violate the spirit of the treaty, although it has not formally cited a "material breach" as outlined in the VCLT.
  
  Legal Question: Can India legally suspend the treaty unilaterally based on national security concerns, or does this violate the principles of the VCLT, which require a material breach or specific legal justification?
   
• Article 60(2) - Exception in Case of Material Breach:
  The Vienna Convention allows for the suspension of a treaty if one party has materially breached the treaty. In the case of the IWT, India has not formally claimed that Pakistan has violated the treaty's specific provisions, but rather, it has cited national security as its primary justification.

Legal Question: Does the concept of "material breach" apply to violations related to terrorism or security concerns, or must it be strictly linked to the treaty's specific clauses?

Provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)

The IWT[6] includes its own set of dispute resolution mechanisms, which are crucial to understanding whether India's suspension can be legally justified under the treaty's terms. The IWT has historically been lauded as a model for transboundary water-sharing treaties, but its success has often been overshadowed by the broader political tensions between India and Pakistan (Zawahri, 2013)[7]

• Permanent Indus Commission (PIC):
  • The treaty establishes the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), a bilateral forum intended to resolve disputes and ensure that both parties adhere to the provisions of the IWT. The Commission is tasked with managing day-to-day water-related matters and preventing conflicts. Both India and Pakistan are obligated to notify the Commission in case of any grievances or disagreements over water usage.
  • Legal Implication: By suspending the treaty without first fully engaging the PIC, India may be in violation of the treaty's provisions, which encourage dialogue and resolution through this established commission.
  • Legal Question: Can India bypass the PIC and suspend its participation without exhausting the dispute resolution mechanisms outlined in the IWT?
     
• Neutral Experts:
  • The IWT also provides for the appointment of Neutral Experts to resolve technical disputes, particularly related to water projects or the construction of dams on shared rivers. India's current stance regarding hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, and the subsequent suspension of treaty obligations, could potentially be brought before a Neutral Expert for arbitration. Water security has increasingly become a contentious issue in South Asia, with the Indus Waters Treaty acting as both a stabilizing framework and a flashpoint for conflict (Bose, 2019).
  • Legal Implication: If India perceives a violation of the treaty, it should have, according to the IWT, initiated the neutral expert process before suspending its participation entirely.
  • Legal Question: Did India violate the treaty's dispute resolution mechanisms by failing to engage neutral experts or the PIC before suspending the treaty?
     
• Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA):
  • The IWT also includes provisions for taking disputes to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in cases where the dispute cannot be resolved through the PIC or neutral experts. The PCA is an option when there is a legal impasse or if one party believes the treaty is being violated in a way that requires international intervention.
  • Legal Implication: If India believes that Pakistan is violating the treaty or compromising its security interests, it could pursue arbitration through the PCA.
  • Legal Question: Should India have sought arbitration through the PCA before taking the drastic step of suspending the treaty?

Precedents in International Arbitration
There have been notable precedents in international law that can provide context for understanding whether India's actions are legally justified under the IWT:

1. Kishenganga Arbitration (2013)[9]:
   One of the most important cases in the context of the IWT is the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant case, where India was accused of diverting water from the Kishenganga River (a western river under the treaty's control). The dispute was taken to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which ruled that India could proceed with its project, subject to specific constraints regarding the amount of water diverted.
   
   Legal Implication: The PCA's decision in the Kishenganga case demonstrates that India can pursue development projects on the western rivers, but such actions must comply with the treaty's terms. This case reinforces the principle of adhering to the treaty's provisions before taking unilateral action.
    
2. Baglihar Dam Dispute (2007)[10]:
   Another important case was the dispute over the Baglihar Dam, located on the Chenab River. Pakistan claimed that India was violating the IWT by building the dam in a way that altered water flow. The dispute went to a neutral expert, who ruled in favor of India, though some aspects of the dam's construction were modified to comply with the treaty.
   
   Legal Implication: The neutral expert's involvement underscores the importance of using established mechanisms for resolving disputes related to the IWT. India's suspension without exhausting these avenues is legally contentious.

Conclusion: Legal Standing of India's Suspension

The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty by India is legally complex. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does allow for treaty suspension in cases of material breach or under specific conditions, but India's justification primarily rests on national security concerns rather than a violation of the treaty's terms by Pakistan.

Furthermore, India's failure to engage with the Permanent Indus Commission or seek neutral expert arbitration before suspending the treaty calls into question the legality of this unilateral action under the IWT itself.

In conclusion, while India's actions may be politically motivated, the legal justification for such a drastic move remains uncertain. The treaty's dispute resolution mechanisms are designed to prevent such unilateral decisions, making this an issue for both legal scholars and international diplomacy to resolve.

Geopolitical Implications of India's Suspension of the IWT
The suspension of India's participation in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has generated widespread apprehension regarding its potential to destabilize an already turbulent South Asian region. This unprecedented action has reverberated across diplomatic, strategic, and environmental domains, with far-reaching implications for regional stability and international water law.

Essentially, the IWT transcends a mere water-sharing agreement; it embodies a rare avenue of cooperation in a region beset by hostility. By unilaterally suspending the treaty, India risks dismantling one of the few functional diplomatic frameworks between the two nations.

This maneuver could embolden hawkish elements on both sides, intensifying mistrust and hostility, and potentially igniting further conflict. Pakistan, heavily reliant on the western rivers for agricultural purposes, has responded with alarm, perceiving India's actions as a direct threat to its water security. The prospect of water becoming a means of coercion in South Asia—a phenomenon commonly referred to as "hydro-hegemony"—looms larger than ever.

India's decision to suspend the Indus Water Treaty shows a shift in its foreign policy. Usually cautious, India is now using the treaty as a tool to address what it sees as Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism. This change, while reflecting public opinion, raises questions about how water diplomacy will work in the region in the future. It also makes it harder for countries to try to resolve conflicts in South Asia, where resources and politics have often been a problem.

Internationally, India's suspension of the treaty challenges the importance of agreements that share water between countries. The World Bank, which is supposed to make sure the treaty is respected, is worried and wants both countries to talk things out calmly. This crisis shows how fragile international rules are for managing shared resources in areas of conflict. It also puts the spotlight on the role of water in global security, showing that water disputes could become important issues in the 21st century.

Environmental concerns make things worse. If water-sharing arrangements are disrupted, people could overuse rivers and damage ecosystems and biodiversity in the Indus Basin. Climate change makes things even more complicated, with unpredictable rainfall and melting glaciers already threatening water supplies. If cooperation mechanisms like the treaty break down, these problems could get worse, leaving millions of people vulnerable to water shortages and the social and economic consequences that come with them.

In summary, India's decision to suspend the Indus Water Treaty has far-reaching consequences beyond the immediate conflict between India and Pakistan. It's a major moment in South Asian politics, with potential effects on regional stability, international law, and environmental security. Whether this crisis leads to more talks or a bigger conflict will depend on whether both countries are willing to work together rather than fight.

Recommendations and Path Forward
The current crisis demands urgent and constructive action to prevent the unraveling of a critical framework for regional stability. Both India and Pakistan must recognize that the IWT, despite its limitations, remains an invaluable tool for managing shared resources and mitigating conflict. To restore confidence and ensure the treaty's survival, several steps can be undertaken:

1. Dialogue Through the Permanent Indus Commission: Immediate engagement through the PIC can help address grievances within the treaty framework and prevent further escalation.
2. International Mediation: The World Bank and other neutral third parties can facilitate constructive negotiations, addressing both water-sharing issues and underlying political tensions.
3. Modernizing the Treaty: Incorporating climate resilience and sustainability into the IWT's provisions is crucial for adapting to contemporary challenges.
4. Regional Cooperation: A broader framework for water-sharing in South Asia, encompassing other riparian nations, could enhance collective resilience to water scarcity and climate change.

Conclusion
The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty signifies a pivotal juncture in the complex relationship between India and Pakistan. While this action reflects India's growing assertiveness in addressing perceived security concerns, it also carries the risk of undermining a rare pillar of stability in a deeply divided region. The legal, geopolitical, and environmental ramifications of this decision are profound, underscoring the interconnectedness of resource management, international law, and diplomacy.

As the global community grapples with the dual challenges of resource scarcity and political instability, the lessons of the Indus Waters Treaty transcend South Asia. This crisis emphasizes the necessity of robust and adaptable frameworks to manage shared resources and mitigate conflict in an era of unprecedented environmental and geopolitical upheaval.

Whether this moment is commemorated as the commencement of a perilous unraveling or as a catalyst for renewed cooperation will hinge upon the actions of both nations and the international community. It is evident that the stakes are too high for failure. The Indus Waters Treaty's legacy as a symbol of resilience and diplomacy must not be forsaken; rather, it should inspire renewed commitments to cooperation, equity, and sustainability in managing the world's most vital resources.

End Notes:

1. Indus Waters Treaty, India-Pak.-World Bank, arts. II–III, Sept. 19, 1960; Indus Waters Treaty, India-Pak.-World Bank, annexes C–D, para. 9, Sept. 19, 1960, available at https://www.worldbank.org.
2. Indus Waters Treaty, India-Pak.-World Bank, annexes D–E, Sept. 19, 1960; Indus Waters Treaty, India-Pak.-World Bank, annexes D–E, para. 8, Sept. 19, 1960, available at https://www.worldbank.org.
3. Indus Waters Treaty, India-Pak.-World Bank, art. IX, Sept. 19, 1960, available at https://www.worldbank.org.
4. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
5. McCaffrey, S. C. (2007). The Law of International Watercourses: Non-Navigational Uses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Indus Waters Treaty, Sept. 19, 1960, India-Pakistan.
7. Zawahri, N. A. (2013). Water Conflict in South Asia: The Political Economy of the Indus Waters Treaty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bose, S. (2019). Water security and the Indus Waters Treaty: Analyzing India and Pakistan's bilateral relations. International Journal of South Asian Studies, 12(3), 58-75.
9. The Kishenganga Case: India's Rights under the Indus Waters Treaty. Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org.
10. Baglihar Dam Arbitration: India and Pakistan Dispute over Water Sharing. Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org.