Rivers of Resolve: Why suspending the Indus Waters Treaty is a strategic imperative after Pahalgam

The recent terrorist ambush on the innocent tourists in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam, has again exposed the rot of cross-border terror, brought into sharp focus the question of proportionality and response. Each time blood is spilled on the Indian soil by forces emanating from across the border, the nation mourns, reacts with diplomatic outrage, tightens security, and moves on. But this cycle must be broken. At some point, restraint becomes complicity.

In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, the Government of India has taken a bold and long-overdue step—it has moved to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), one of the most generous and lopsided water-sharing agreements in the world. This is not just a policy shift, it is a recalibration of India’s strategic doctrine.

Signed in 1960, in an era far removed from today’s realities, the Indus Waters Treaty was an act of remarkable generosity by an upper riparian India. It granted Pakistan near-exclusive rights over the waters of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—rivers that originate in Indian territory. For decades, India honoured the treaty even during full-scale wars and covert proxy conflicts. But the age of automatic magnanimity is over. The suspension of the IWT marks a decisive turn—where cooperation is no longer unconditional, and dialogue is no longer disconnected from deeds.

The Jhelum River, whose headwaters lie in India, flows directly through the region where Pakistan-backed militants gunned down Indian soldiers in Pahalgam. That water, nourished by Indian glaciers and mountains, eventually sustains Pakistan’s economy and agriculture. In return, what India receives is infiltration, radicalisation, and relentless bloodshed. The symbolism is stark—and so is the imperative. The Government’s decision to suspend the IWT is not an act of retaliation; it is an assertion of sovereign logic.

This move comes after years of diplomatic exhaustion. India has been patient. It has absorbed attacks in Uri, Pulwama, and now Pahalgam, while choosing to respond through global forums, dossiers, and restraint. But when a treaty becomes a strategic liability—when it empowers a belligerent neighbour with economic lifelines while they export terror—it ceases to be a diplomatic instrument and becomes a moral failure.

It is important to understand that this suspension is not an arbitrary breach of international norms. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a fundamental change in circumstances—such as the continued use of terror as state policy—provides legal ground for renegotiation or withdrawal. India has exhausted the dispute resolution mechanisms under the IWT. Pakistan’s habitual misuse of arbitration panels and neutral experts to stall Indian projects has made the treaty unworkable. The Government’s move is legally defensible, diplomatically deliberate, and strategically astute.

What does this suspension mean in operational terms? It means that India will now assert its full entitlement over the eastern rivers, accelerating long-delayed projects like the Shahpur Kandi Dam and Ujh multipurpose project. It means that hydropower infrastructure on western rivers will be scaled up rapidly. It means that water flowing unutilised into Pakistan will now be directed to support irrigation, industry, and drinking water needs in Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh. This is not water as a weapon. This is water as national right.

Critics may raise concerns about international backlash or ecological consequences. But the reality is that global sentiment has shifted. The global community, increasingly aware of Pakistan’s double game, is unlikely to be swayed by cries of victimhood. Moreover, India’s position can be bolstered by highlighting how the IWT, signed in a pre-climate-change, pre-terrorism era, is now outdated. The treaty does not account for glacial melt, increased water variability, trans-boundary hydro-politics or asymmetric warfare. A revised framework—rooted in sustainability, reciprocity, accountability and hard-realism—is both logical and necessary. If anything, revising the treaty offers an opportunity to integrate climate resilience, data transparency, and regional sustainability into a 21st-century water framework.

Domestically, the benefits are immense. Jammu and Kashmir, long denied full utilisation of its riverine potential due to international sensitivities, can now develop large-scale hydropower that generates jobs, stabilises grids, and improves infrastructure. Ladakh, with its unique water needs and altitude challenges, can benefit from controlled storage and adaptive distribution. Even Punjab and Haryana, battling agrarian distress, can gain from better irrigation planning. This is national interest in action—not at the cost of others, but in fulfilment of what was always rightfully ours.

By suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, India is also rewriting the rules of engagement. The message to Islamabad is clear: treaties require trust. When that trust is systematically eroded by proxy war and cross-border terrorism, the framework of cooperation cannot hold. If Pakistan wants the privileges of diplomacy, it must first uphold the principles of peace. The days of one-sided patience are over. This is a new water doctrine: principled, powerful, and unapologetically Indian.

This decision also sets a precedent for the broader region. It signals that India will no longer allow historical inertia to dictate present vulnerability. Whether it is trade, visas, culture, or water, reciprocity is the new baseline. It also reminds the world that sovereignty is not merely about borders—it is about resources, resilience, and refusal to be taken for granted.

The terrorists who struck in Pahalgam sought to destabilise the Valley. What they have done instead is awaken a deeper resolve. India has responded not just with weapons and diplomacy, but with the reassertion of control over its natural capital. Rivers, like nations, must flow with dignity. And dignity cannot coexist with duplicity.

As the Indus flows through the mountains of Kashmir and into the plains of Pakistan, let it now carry a message—not of hostility, but of hard realism. India will share what is fair, but it will no longer suffer what is unjust. The Indus Waters Treaty was forged in hope. Today, it flows through hypocrisy. If Pakistan wishes to continue enjoying the privileges of a water-sharing agreement, it must renounce the politics of bloodshed. Until then, India has every moral, legal, and strategic right to turn the tide. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty is not the end of diplomacy; it is the beginning of a new equilibrium, forged in the waters of resolve.

(The author is an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officer. He is currently serving in the Union Territory of Ladakh.)

–IANS

The post Rivers of Resolve: Why suspending the Indus Waters Treaty is a strategic imperative after Pahalgam appeared first on News Room Odisha.

News