Mentor’s Comment:  In response to the terrorist attack by The Resistance Front that killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, India’s Cabinet Committee on Security decided to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 immediately. This suspension will remain in place until Pakistan completely stops supporting cross-border terrorism. The decision essentially means ending the water treaty, which was signed in 1960, but there is no clause in the treaty that allows for it to be cancelled unilaterally.

Today’s editorial looks at the recent halt of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) after a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. This topic is useful for GS Paper II (International Relations).

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

India may defend its decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, but this could affect its relationships with neighbouring countries.

Why did India suspend the Indus Waters Treaty?

• Response to Cross-Border Terrorism: India suspended the IWT as a strong retaliatory measure after The Resistance Front, a Pakistan-backed terrorist group, killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. Eg: The Cabinet Committee on Security declared the suspension until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.”
• Strategic Leverage Against Pakistan: India views the IWT as a tool of strategic pressure, given that Pakistan’s agriculture and hydropower heavily rely on water from the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers. Eg: By suspending water-sharing obligations and planning to increase storage and diversion, India aims to weaken Pakistan’s water security.

What legal challenges arise from this suspension under international law?

• Lack of Exit Clause in the IWT: The IWT does not have a provision for unilateral termination or suspension by either party. Article XII (4) specifies that the treaty shall continue unless a duly ratified treaty for termination is concluded. Eg: India’s suspension of the treaty violates this provision, as there is no formal exit mechanism within the IWT itself.
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Challenges: India’s use of VCLT provisions, particularly Article 62 on treaty modification or termination due to a fundamental change in circumstances, is problematic. India is not a party to the VCLT, and Pakistan has signed but not ratified it, making its application complex. Eg: Using VCLT to justify the suspension may face legal challenges since it doesn’t apply directly in the context of the IWT.
• Violation of International Legal Norms: Unilateral suspension of the IWT without mutual consent may be viewed as a violation of customary international law, which favors the continuation of treaties unless both parties agree to their termination. Eg: Legal experts argue that India’s actions undermine the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), which is a core tenet of international law.
• Possible Retaliation and Legal Action by Pakistan: Pakistan has legal recourse to challenge India’s suspension, including bringing the issue to international forums such as the ICJ, UN Security Council, or the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Eg: Pakistan could argue that India’s suspension violates the VCLT or raises a dispute regarding the treaty’s interpretation, seeking a legal ruling on the matter.

How could the move impact water disputes within Pakistan?

• Intensification of Inter-Provincial Water Conflicts: Pakistan’s provinces, particularly Punjab and Sindh, already face longstanding water disputes. India’s suspension of the IWT could exacerbate these internal conflicts, especially as the western rivers are critical to both agriculture and hydroelectric power in Pakistan. Eg: Punjab and Sindh have previously clashed over water allocations, and a reduction in water flow from India could heighten tensions, particularly over the allocation of Indus river waters.
• Increased Political Instability: A reduction in the water flow from India could lead to widespread agricultural damage and water shortages, particularly in Punjab, which is the country’s agricultural heartland. This could spark public protests and political instability within Pakistan. Eg: The ongoing disputes over projects like the Cholistan Canal between provinces may intensify if Pakistan faces reduced water availability, leading to political pressures on the federal government to resolve these disputes.

What are the regional diplomatic consequences of India’s decision?

• Strained Relations with Pakistan: Suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) may worsen India-Pakistan relations, particularly over water access, potentially leading to diplomatic protests. Eg: Pakistan could raise the issue at international platforms like the UN or the International Court of Justice.
• Impact on India-China Relations: China, as an upper riparian of India’s rivers, may use India’s suspension to justify withholding hydro data on rivers like the Brahmaputra. Eg: During the 2017 Doklam crisis, China did not share hydro data with India but did with Bangladesh.
• Influence on India-Bangladesh Ties: India’s suspension could affect the renewal of the Ganga Water Treaty with Bangladesh in 2026. Eg: Bangladesh could be concerned about water-sharing agreements, given the geopolitical tensions.

Way forward:

• Engage in Diplomatic Dialogue: India should initiate diplomatic discussions with Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh to mitigate tensions and seek mutually beneficial water-sharing agreements, ensuring regional stability.
• Strengthen Water Infrastructure: India must invest in enhancing its water storage and management infrastructure to maximize its treaty entitlements and reduce reliance on fluctuating water flows.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now