India’s Treaty Decision Puts Sri Lanka on Alert

The recent unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty by India has generated significant apprehension throughout South Asia, especially in Sri Lanka. India’s Treaty Decision Puts Sri Lanka on Alert For more than sixty years, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has remained one of the most robust and unassailable international water-sharing accords, facilitated by the World Bank in 1960 between India and Pakistan. The interruption signifies a substantial change in India’s diplomatic stance and undermines the legitimacy of India’s pledges in many bilateral and regional accords.
Sri Lankan political experts and diplomatic watchers are attentively scrutinizing the ramifications of India’s action. The timing of the suspension is particularly troubling for Colombo, as it is now engaged in negotiations for many strategic and infrastructural deals with New Delhi. Included are suggestions to integrate the national electrical networks of both nations and an ambitious initiative to build a land bridge connecting the island country to the Indian mainland. Both endeavours need a substantial level of confidence, collaboration, and reciprocal assurance. India’s reversal on a longstanding international pact has instilled scepticism over the sustainability of such confidence.
The Indus Waters Treaty, which regulates the use and allocation of water from the Indus River and its tributaries, has historically been seen as a fundamental element of regional stability between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. Notwithstanding several conflicts and enduring animosities between the two countries, the pact persisted, illustrating how common resources may surpass profound political rifts. India’s abrupt and unilateral decision to suspend the treaty, reportedly based on controversial and baseless allegations against Pakistan after the Pahalgam incident, has elicited condemnation from several sectors. Critics contend that India has opted to politicize a technical and humanitarian accord, so compromising legal standards and diplomatic goodwill.
The response in Sri Lanka has been notably incisive. A former Sri Lankan ambassador to the United Nations said that if India can unilaterally suspend such a vital pact with Pakistan, there is less deterrent to other actions regarding accords with other, lesser neighbours. “Engaging in power and fuel agreements with a nation that demonstrates a propensity to unilaterally amend binding treaties is not only perilous but also strategically imprudent,” he said. His statements reflect the increasing feeling within Sri Lanka’s government and civic society that India’s actions have repercussions extending beyond the two historical adversaries of the subcontinent.
The issue is not only theoretical. The interconnected electrical networks and a physical land bridge suggest a prolonged entanglement in issues concerning essential national infrastructure. Any prospective disruption—be it political or technical—may render Sri Lanka susceptible. This is especially critical given that energy security and infrastructural connection are essential to Colombo’s economic recovery initiatives. Trust and reliability in these collaborations are essential requirements.
Furthermore, there is apprehension about the precedent India may establish in its overarching foreign policy. By unilaterally suspending a convention that specifically prohibits unilateral termination, India seems to be altering the parameters of diplomatic interaction in the area. Such actions jeopardize the integrity of international accords and may have repercussions for other treaties, both bilateral and multilateral, within the South Asian area and beyond. If dominant countries see the liberty to forsake obligations when advantageous, smaller nations are likely to engage in future discussions with more caution, scepticism, and defensive stances.
The intricacy is further compounded by the reality that water, power, and energy serve not just as economic resources but also as geopolitical instruments. India’s aggressiveness on water distribution in the Indus basin may be reflected in its stance on energy sharing or infrastructural links with Sri Lanka. This prospect has garnered attention in Colombo, where strategic experts are advocating for the government to reassess its bargaining tactics and demand more stringent protections in any accord with New Delhi.
India’s justification for suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, allegations against Pakistan over its participation in a violent incident, has failed to persuade international observers. The reliance on a single, contentious event to rationalize the circumvention of a longstanding agreement prompts inquiries on proportionality and motivation. It indicates a transition towards using hard leverage in regional matters, diverging from the conventional diplomacy that has defined India’s regional interactions, especially under its “Neighbourhood First” policy.
In summary, India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty has not only impacted its tenuous relationship with Pakistan but has also incited concern across the region. This trend has overshadowed Sri Lanka’s efforts to reconstruct its economy and promote regional integration in its relations with India. Once shattered, trust is difficult to rehabilitate. As Colombo re-evaluates its cooperative conditions with New Delhi, it will likely want more explicit promises, enforceable protections, and maybe international scrutiny in future accords. The legacy of the Indus Waters Treaty, formerly a representation of resilience and collaboration, may now function as a warning narrative for the region’s lesser governments.