Mentor’s Comment:  On April 24, India declared that it would temporarily suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 until Pakistan stops supporting cross-border terrorism. The term “abeyance” means a temporary pause, with the possibility of restarting the treaty if Pakistan takes real actions to stop terrorism, especially following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22.

Today’s editorial discusses India’s temporary suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960. This topic is relevant for GS Paper II (International Relations).

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

Using water resources as a strategic tool may offer short-term gains, but it could ultimately harm India in the long run.

Why has India placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance?

• Response to Cross-Border Terrorism: India used the IWT as a strategic pressure tool following the Pahalgam terror attack (April 22, 2024), holding Pakistan accountable for supporting terrorism. Eg: Similar to the 2016 Uri attack response (surgical strikes), this move sends a message of zero tolerance.
• Political Messaging and Public Sentiment: The decision caters to domestic outrage and shows a firm stance, particularly after recurring terror incidents. It helps the government project decisive action without immediate military escalation. Eg: After the Pulwama attack in 2019, India took firm actions like revoking Article 370 — a similar pattern of assertiveness is evident.
• Leverage to Expedite Infrastructure Projects: India aims to use this pause to accelerate stalled or disputed hydropower and irrigation projects like Ratle and Tulbul Navigation on western rivers. Eg: Pakistan’s objections delayed the Kishenganga and Baglihar projects — abeyance reduces procedural hurdles temporarily.
• Legal Dispute over Treaty Mechanism: India had already accused Pakistan of violating dispute resolution provisions of the IWT by unilaterally approaching the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2023. Eg: India considers this a material breach and is using “abeyance” as a middle path instead of outright termination.
• Strategic Signalling Amid Regional Instability: Given Pakistan’s current political and economic instability, India sees an opportunity to reshape the narrative and strengthen its own water security posture. Eg: With Pakistan’s military losing public support and the government under pressure, India is testing diplomatic leverage.

What are the legal limitations under the IWT and international law regarding unilateral suspension or abeyance of a treaty?

• Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda: Under international law, treaties must be honored in good faith. This principle (pacta sunt servanda) ensures that once a treaty is ratified, it cannot be unilaterally suspended or abrogated without serious justification. Eg: In the IWT, India and Pakistan are obligated to maintain water-sharing arrangements despite political tensions.
• Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A treaty can only be suspended or terminated unilaterally if there is a “material breach” or a fundamental change in circumstances (rebus sic stantibus), and this must be declared after due process. Eg: If one party to a treaty deliberately violates its terms, the other party might argue that the treaty is no longer binding.
• Specific Treaty Provisions: Many treaties, including the IWT, include specific provisions about suspension, termination, or modification in certain circumstances. These provisions must be followed. Eg: In the IWT, disputes are to be resolved through a permanent commission rather than unilateral suspension of obligations.
• Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Most treaties include mechanisms for resolving disputes rather than allowing unilateral suspension, reinforcing the need for cooperation and dialogue. Eg: The IWT mandates the use of a Permanent Indus Commission to address any disputes regarding the water-sharing arrangement.

How might India use the term “abeyance” to affect procedural cooperation mechanisms under the Indus Waters Treaty?

• Suspension of Dispute Resolution Mechanism: The term “abeyance” suggests temporarily putting something on hold rather than full termination, which could lead to the suspension of mechanisms like the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) for resolving water-sharing disputes. Eg: If India places certain provisions of the IWT in abeyance, it could halt the regular meetings and communication under the PIC, leading to delayed resolutions.
• Impact on Technical Cooperation: The IWT relies on continuous technical cooperation to monitor water flows and manage the shared river systems. “Abeyance” may disrupt such technical collaboration, affecting data sharing and joint assessments. Eg: India’s use of “abeyance” could delay joint inspections or data exchange related to water quality or infrastructure projects, impacting the treaty’s smooth functioning.
• Erosion of Trust: Using “abeyance” could signal a lack of commitment to the treaty, potentially undermining trust between India and Pakistan and hindering future cooperation under the IWT. Eg: If India temporarily halts cooperation on the IWT, Pakistan may view it as a breach of good faith, weakening the foundation of trust that is critical for long-term collaboration.
• Escalation of Diplomatic Tensions: The term could be interpreted as a politically motivated pause, which may lead to diplomatic tensions between the two countries. This would make it harder to revive procedural cooperation when needed. Eg: India’s declaration of “abeyance” after the 2019 Pulwama attack could escalate tensions and make it more difficult to resume dialogue on water-related issues, as the diplomatic focus shifts to security concerns.

Way forward: 

• Engage in Diplomatic Dialogue: India and Pakistan should prioritize re-engaging through the Permanent Indus Commission to address grievances and resume cooperation on water-sharing, ensuring that the IWT remains intact while managing political tensions.
• Strengthen Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Both countries should strengthen the dispute resolution mechanisms under the IWT, ensuring that any concerns over violations are addressed through legal channels rather than unilateral actions, preserving long-term stability and trust.

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

Attend Now