Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) represents one of the world's most successful water-sharing agreements, demonstrating remarkable resilience despite decades of Indo-Pakistani hostility. Signed between India and Pakistan with World Bank mediation, this treaty has withstood multiple wars and conflicts, establishing a comprehensive framework for equitable distribution of the Indus River system's resources and creating mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution. 

What is the Indus Water Treaty of 1960? 

• The Indus Water Treaty is a landmark water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan that governs the use of six rivers in the Indus system.  
• Signed on 19th September, 1960, in Karachi by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Pakistani President Mohammad Ayub Khan, and W.A.B. Iliff representing the World Bank, the treaty came into effect on 1st April, 1960.  
• It resulted from nearly a decade of complex negotiations involving engineers, diplomats, and international legal experts. 

How are the Rivers Divided Under the Treaty? 

The treaty established a clear division of the Indus River system: 

• Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej): Allocated to India for exclusive use 
• Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab): Allocated to Pakistan for exclusive use, with limited rights granted to India including:  
  • Non-consumptive use (hydroelectric generation without storage) 
  • Specified agricultural use within designated areas 
  • Domestic use (drinking water, sanitation) 
  • Run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects under strict design conditions 

What are the Key Features of the Treaty? 

• Permanent Indus Commission: Established with one commissioner from each country to facilitate cooperation and information exchange 
• Three-Tier Dispute Resolution Mechanism:  
  • Level 1: Questions handled by the Permanent Indus Commission 
  • Level 2: Differences resolved by a Neutral Expert appointed by the World Bank 
  • Level 3: Disputes referred to the Court of Arbitration 
• Data Exchange: Mandatory monthly exchange of data on river water usage 
• Future Cooperation: Both nations must cooperate to establish hydrologic observation stations and undertake drainage work for river preservation 
• Legal Framework: No exit clause, making it a perpetual agreement requiring mutual consent for amendments 

How Has the Treaty Evolved Through Its Timeline? 

• 2013: Court of Arbitration ruled that India must maintain minimum flows from the Kishanganga Dam 
• 2016: India suspended Indus Commission meetings after the Uri attack, marking the first direct link between water policy and security 
• 2019: Following the Pulwama attack, India emphasized full utilization of eastern rivers 
• 2022: World Bank appointed both a Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration due to dispute resolution deadlock 
• 2023: India invoked Article XII (3) to propose treaty modifications citing climate change and development needs 
• 2024: India issued formal notice to amend the treaty, calling it outdated 
• 2025: After the Pahalgam attack, India announced suspension of treaty obligations 

What Was the Pahalgam Attack and How Did It Affect the Treaty? 

• In April 2025, a terror attack in Pahalgam prompted India to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, demanding action from Pakistan against cross-border terrorism. 
• This marked a significant shift in India's approach, directly linking water diplomacy to national security concerns.  
• Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement that "blood and water cannot flow together" highlighted this changed stance. 
• The suspension granted India greater control over western rivers, with implications for hydropower generation and flood management. 

What are the Legal Frameworks of the Indus Waters Treaty? 

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) constitutes a binding international agreement characterized by perpetuity and bilateral commitment. Signed in 1960 and governed by established principles of international law, the treaty presents a complex legal situation when evaluating possibilities of suspension or termination: 

• Perpetual Nature and Article XII Constraints:  
  • The treaty explicitly establishes itself as a permanent arrangement through Article XII, which stipulates that the IWT "shall remain in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments." 
  • This provision categorically precludes unilateral termination or suspension, requiring mutual consent for any modification or dissolution of treaty obligations. 
• Vienna Convention Application:  
  • Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), particularly Articles 26 and 60, any unilateral suspension constitutes a material breach of the fundamental principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). 
  • While Article 62 recognizes the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (fundamental change of circumstances), international jurisprudence has established an extremely high threshold for invoking this exception, which terrorism-related incidents typically do not satisfy. 
• Limited Recourse Under Treaty Mechanisms:  
  • The treaty's three-tiered dispute resolution framework—operating through the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert, and Court of Arbitration—becomes functionally inoperative if one party unilaterally suspends the agreement, as these mechanisms presuppose mutual participation within the treaty framework. 
• Jurisdictional Barriers for International Adjudication:  
  • Pakistan faces significant legal impediments in pursuing international remedies due to:  
    • India's specific reservation to Article 36(2) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute, which excludes disputes with Commonwealth countries 
    • The absence of compulsory jurisdiction for water disputes under general international law 
    • The requirement for India's consent to establish an ad hoc arbitration tribunal outside the treaty framework 
• Customary International Law Implications:  
  • Unilateral suspension potentially violates established principles of customary international water law, including equitable utilization and the obligation not to cause significant harm to co-riparian states, which exist independently of the treaty framework. 
• Enforcement Vacuum:  
  • The absence of enforcement provisions creates a significant legal lacuna, as the treaty contains no procedural mechanism to compel compliance or reinstate obligations following unilateral suspension, leaving Pakistan without direct legal means to enforce India's compliance. 
• Potential Counter-Measures:  
  • While limited under international law, Pakistan might legally justify proportionate counter-measures under the Articles on State Responsibility, though these must be non-violent, proportionate, and directed toward inducing compliance rather than punitive in nature.

Conclusion

Despite enduring for over six decades through multiple wars and conflicts, the Indus Waters Treaty now faces its most significant challenge with India's suspension following the Pahalgam attack. This development transforms water from a shared resource to a potential geopolitical instrument, with profound implications for both nations' security, diplomatic relations, and the future of water cooperation in South Asia. Whatever path forward emerges will shape not just water management but the broader contours of Indo-Pakistani relations.