Breach of the Indus Waters Treaty
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), which withstood three wars and decades of varying animosity, has long been hailed as a unique diplomatic accomplishment between India and Pakistan. Its continued existence for over 60 years attests to both states’ understanding that national security and water security are inextricably linked. However, India’s unilateral suspension of the treaty in April 2025 in response to the Pahalgam attack, as well as subsequent measures that limit and control flows on the Western Rivers, represent a historic breach. These acts pose an existential threat to Pakistan’s water security, economic stability, and regional peace; they are not just technical infractions.
India’s decision to suspend a treaty that expressly prohibits unilateral modification is at the core of the current crisis. Any modification or termination of the IWT requires mutual consent, according to Article XII (3)–(4). India has attempted, on its own, to reinterpret a legally binding international agreement that is based on customary international law and was mediated by the World Bank. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties also forbids unilateral suspension in situations where a dispute-resolution mechanism is in place. The IWT carefully outlines this protection, which includes clauses pertaining to arbitration, neutral experts, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).
India’s categorical rejection of these mechanisms is a betrayal of both international legal norms that shield states from coercive actions by upstream powers and treaty compliance
Pakistan is directly, quantifiably, and severely impacted by India’s violations. During crucial agricultural seasons between 2023 and 2025, manipulation of the Chenab and Jhelum flows has already led to 40–50% reductions at Marala. Over 1.5 million acres of crops have been destroyed as a result of these reductions, which have also put a strain on food supply chains and caused severe rural distress throughout Punjab. Unusual reservoir operations that correspond to political tensions and the post-suspension period are confirmed by independent satellite imagery and hydrological monitoring. Such disruptions are fundamental to human security in a nation where 240 million people depend on the Indus system for food, livelihoods, and hydropower. Additionally, they increase the risks to public health because water scarcity makes sanitation problems worse and jeopardizes supplies of safe drinking water.
As the treaty’s custodian, the World Bank has made it clear that the IWT is still fully operative, that suspension is not allowed, and that disagreements must be settled through established procedures. Its correspondence from 2023 to 2025 reiterates that India cannot avoid its obligations under treaties by merely refusing to participate. The PCA’s August 2025 ruling, which upheld its jurisdiction in spite of India’s boycott and clarified important treaty clauses, supported this position. The decision rejected operational methods that artificially raise water levels, strengthened restrictions on Indian run-of-river projects, and upheld Pakistan’s right to continuous Western Rivers flows.
India’s strategic stance of obstruction rather than legitimate engagement is highlighted by its refusal to accept this ruling and to participate in later sessions, such as the Vienna meetings scheduled for November 17–21, 2025
The ramifications go well beyond South Asia. India’s use of water as a weapon creates a precedent that jeopardizes international transboundary water agreements. The integrity of international water governance is seriously compromised if an upper riparian state, especially one with nuclear weapons, can unilaterally redefine a treaty mediated by the World Bank. Therefore, Pakistan’s warnings at the UN Security Council in November 2025 were not rhetorical but rather based on a larger concern: destabilizing one of the most densely populated and climate-vulnerable basins in the world runs the risk of starting a larger regional crisis with global ramifications.
Despite being negatively impacted by upstream manipulation, Pakistan has continuously followed the IWT’s protocols. From continuing to participate in the Neutral Expert process to accepting arbitration decisions, it has traditionally sought resolution through diplomatic and legal means. India has attempted to impose facts on the ground, reject legal venues, and avoid adjudication. Research organizations from around the world, such as the Stimson Center, Utrecht University, Oxford Water Security Institute, and IISS London, have called India’s actions blatant violations of treaties and, in certain situations, “water warfare lite.” Similarly, the 2025 Ecological Threat Report cautions that unilateral upstream control creates significant vulnerability in a basin where Pakistan can store only 30 days of Indus runoff.
The financial risks are enormous. According to analyses cited by the Asian Development Bank in 2024, a persistent 15–20% decrease in Western Rivers flows could result in yearly GDP losses of US$10–12 billion. Eight to ten million people could be displaced as a result of the agricultural collapse, which would cause an internal migration shock with unstable political, social, and security repercussions.
President Zardari’s statement in November 2025 that 240 million Pakistanis are at risk due to India’s actions encapsulates the magnitude of the problem: the IWT violation is not just a diplomatic disagreement but a potential national emergency
A coordinated approach that combines persistent diplomatic pressure, multilateral engagement, and legal assertiveness is desperately needed. Pakistan needs to rally international allies, take advantage of the World Bank’s trustee position, and demand that treaty-compliant flows be restored right away. Global organizations must simultaneously acknowledge that the IWT’s degradation could trigger one of the most serious water crises in contemporary history.
However, confrontation is not the only way to find a long-term solution. Cooperation, open data sharing, and collaborative basin management are essential for long-term stability in the Indus basin. River flow variability is being exacerbated, monsoon patterns are changing, and glacial melt is becoming more intense due to climate change. Therefore, unilateralism is not only illegal but also counterproductive. Sustainable development in South Asia necessitates shared stewardship of the Indus system rather than coercion, as the 2025 Ecological Threat Report highlights.
An unprecedented betrayal of confidence and the law is represented by India’s suspension of the IWT and subsequent infractions. These actions jeopardize Pakistan’s existential water security, destabilize a vulnerable area, and threaten the international framework of transboundary water governance if they are not reversed. Rethinking adherence to the treaty that has protected the basin for 65 years is the way to stability, not manipulating rivers.
