# *Indus Water Treaty Ends Following Pahalgam Attack: A Turning Point in India-Pakistan Relations*
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan with the mediation of the World Bank, has long been hailed as one of the most successful water-sharing agreements in the world, surviving multiple wars and decades of hostility. However, a tragic and deadly attack in Pahalgam in early 2025 has become the flashpoint that led the Indian government to declare the unilateral termination of the treaty, sparking intense international debate, regional instability, and profound geopolitical shifts. This article examines the causes, implications, and historical weight of the decision to end the Indus Waters Treaty in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack.
## *Background: The Indus Waters Treaty*
The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, by then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan. The treaty was brokered by the World Bank and divided the rivers of the Indus Basin between the two nations: the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—were allocated to India, while the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—were given to Pakistan.
The agreement allowed India limited usage rights over the western rivers for irrigation, hydropower, and transport, but with significant restrictions to ensure a continuous flow to Pakistan. Despite the wars of 1965, 1971, and 1999, the treaty remained intact and was often described as a testament to the potential for cooperation even in conflict.
## *The Pahalgam Attack: What Happened*
In February 2025, the picturesque town of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, known for its scenic beauty and tourism, became the site of a devastating terrorist attack. A heavily armed group launched a surprise assault on a military convoy and a tourist bus, killing over 30 people, including civilians, and foreign tourists. The attack was well-planned, coordinated, and bore the hallmarks of previous assaults linked to Pakistan-based terror outfits such as Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Investigations by Indian intelligence agencies quickly traced the origins of the attack to handlers and training camps located across the Line of Control in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Within days, intercepted communications and satellite imagery were presented by Indian authorities as definitive proof of Pakistani complicity.
## *Political Fallout in India*
The Indian government, led by a nationalist coalition with a strong mandate for national security, reacted with fury. Public outrage reached a crescendo, with mass protests across the country demanding decisive action. Within weeks, the Indian Parliament passed a resolution declaring Pakistan a “terror sponsor state” and authorized the Prime Minister to take “all necessary steps” to safeguard national interests.
Amid escalating rhetoric and demands for retribution, the Indian Prime Minister made a historic announcement: *India would terminate the Indus Waters Treaty* and take full control over the waters of the western rivers. The move, unprecedented in modern history, sent shockwaves through the international community.
## *Legal and Diplomatic Arguments*
India cited Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which allows for the termination of international treaties under the doctrine of “fundamental change of circumstances.” According to Indian legal experts, Pakistan’s continued sponsorship of cross-border terrorism constituted a material breach that fundamentally altered the context under which the IWT was signed.
India also emphasized that water security had become a national security issue. In a statement to the United Nations, India’s representative argued that a country actively waging proxy war through terrorism could not be trusted to honor international agreements.
Pakistan, on the other hand, called the move illegal and a declaration of “water war.” Islamabad appealed to the World Bank and the United Nations, demanding immediate intervention. Pakistani officials warned of severe consequences, including a breakdown of diplomatic ties and the potential for military escalation.
## *Implications for Pakistan*
The termination of the IWT poses an existential threat to Pakistan’s agrarian economy. The Indus River system is the lifeline of Pakistan, supporting over 90% of its agriculture and providing water for nearly 200 million people. Any disruption in water flow from India would have catastrophic effects on food security, energy generation, and social stability.
Pakistan has limited storage capacity, making it heavily reliant on the continuous flow of the western rivers. With India now asserting full control, Pakistan faces the possibility of reduced water supplies during critical crop seasons.
In response, Pakistan accelerated diplomatic efforts, engaging with China, Russia, and Islamic countries to build pressure on India. The Pakistani military also moved to high alert along the borders, warning that “any attempt to weaponize water will be considered an act of aggression.”
## *Global Reaction*
The international response was mixed. The United States and European Union called for restraint and urged both nations to return to dialogue. China, a close ally of Pakistan and upstream controller of the Brahmaputra River, criticized India’s move and hinted at revisiting its own river-sharing arrangements with India. Russia offered to mediate, while the World Bank expressed concern over the treaty’s dissolution and its impact on regional peace.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called the treaty’s termination “a dangerous escalation” and called for urgent negotiations under international supervision. Climate experts also warned that the move could set a dangerous precedent for weaponizing water resources amid growing global scarcity.
## *Impact on Jammu and Kashmir*
In the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, reactions were divided. While many residents welcomed the end of a treaty they perceived as overly favorable to Pakistan, there were also concerns about environmental degradation, over-damming of rivers, and potential displacement due to large-scale hydro projects.
The Indian government announced a massive infrastructure plan to dam and divert the Chenab and Jhelum rivers for irrigation, hydroelectric power, and flood control. However, environmental groups warned of severe ecological consequences and the need for careful planning and sustainable development.
## *India’s Water Strategy Going Forward*
India’s decision to abrogate the IWT marks a significant shift in its strategic doctrine. Traditionally adhering to a soft-water policy, India now appears ready to use water as a geopolitical lever. Experts believe that India may now accelerate the construction of dam projects like Pakal Dul, Ratle, and Bursar on the Chenab River, which had previously been delayed due to treaty restrictions and international objections.
By controlling the timing and volume of water flow, India now has a strategic advantage over Pakistan. During negotiations, water can be used as a bargaining chip. However, such a strategy is fraught with risks, including environmental backlash, retaliation, and global condemnation.
## *Environmental and Ethical Concerns*
Critics of India’s decision have raised concerns over the ethics of using water—a basic human right—as a weapon of war. While India has not yet cut off water supplies, the implied threat creates anxiety and could deepen regional instability. Moreover, large-scale damming and diversion projects risk damaging fragile ecosystems, displacing communities, and altering riverine landscapes irreversibly.
Environmentalists argue that climate change should foster cooperation, not conflict. With glacial melt and erratic rainfall already threatening water security in South Asia, collaborative management of transboundary rivers is more essential than ever.
## *Strategic and Military Dimensions*
Strategically, the move to end the treaty signals a more aggressive posture by India. Analysts believe that it fits into a broader strategy of “full-spectrum deterrence,” wherein India uses all dimensions—economic, military, cyber, and now water—as tools of national security. The decision may also serve as a signal to China, which controls major river systems flowing into northeastern India.
Militarily, the Indian Army has increased its presence near dams and river systems, anticipating sabotage attempts by militant groups or even special forces from across the border. Surveillance and riverine defense have become new elements of military doctrine in the region.
## *A New Cold War in South Asia?*
The termination of the Indus Waters Treaty could be the beginning of a new Cold War in South Asia. With two nuclear-armed neighbors entrenched in hostility and water security becoming a zero-sum game, the potential for miscalculation is high. Backchannel diplomacy and third-party mediation are urgently needed to prevent the crisis from spiraling into open conflict.
Some experts have suggested a new treaty framework that includes Afghanistan (which also shares the Indus Basin), broader environmental considerations, and real-time conflict resolution mechanisms. However, trust is currently at an all-time low, and the political will for renegotiation is absent.
The end of the Indus Waters Treaty following the Pahalgam attack marks a watershed moment in South Asian geopolitics. For over six decades, the IWT symbolized the possibility of cooperation even amidst hostility. Its demise reflects the deepening distrust between India and Pakistan, the growing intersection of security and environmental issues, and the weaponization of water as a new front in 21st-century conflict.
Whether this is a temporary rupture or a permanent realignment remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the Pahalgam attack did not just take innocent lives—it also destroyed one of the last remaining bridges of cooperation between two historic rivals. The world watches with bated breath as the subcontinent stands at a dangerous crossroads.
.jpeg)
0 Comments