Indus versus them

medium120590143In a decisive shift in India’s strategic approach toward Pakistan, GOI has suspended the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) — once hailed as a rare symbol of cooperation in a tense bilateral relationship. This suspension, coming in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, reflects a broader redefinition of India’s tolerance for cross-border provocation.Take Article III(1) of IWT, for instance. It obligates India to ensure an uninterrupted flow of the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — to Pakistan. Even at the peak of hostilities earlier, India upheld this commitment. Now, that continuity is no longer guaranteed. Now, India has effectively dismantled a long-standing pillar of its water-sharing obligations, one that survived all the earlier, repeated provocations.It is true that since the 2016 Uri terror attack, IWT has functioned more in form than substance. Talks continued, but trust eroded. After all, Islamabad’s “compulsively destructive” conduct involved both an unwavering support for terrorism and its use of the treaty to obstruct India’s legitimate water projects. What India’s latest action makes clear is that the era of business-as-usual diplomacy on water is over.New Delhi now cites “fundamental and unforeseen changes in circumstances” — a legal basis for reassessing treaty obligations. On Aug 30, 2024, India formally invoked Article XII(3) to modify the treaty. This followed a Jan 2023 notification urging Pakistan to engage in a fresh look at the agreement. Since then, the treaty’s institutional framework has stalled. The Permanent Indus Commission is defunct, and communication has been reduced to sporadic exchanges between water resource secretaries.But viewing the treaty’s suspension solely as a punitive response to terrorism misses the mark. It won’t immediately hurt Pakistan. Any impact hinges on India’s future ability to build water storage infra, particularly on the Chenab – a process that demands time and resources.For such leverage to materialise, new projects must be strategically designed to regulate flows in ways that could impact Pak agricultural cycles. So far, India has limited itself to run-of-the-river projects that generate hydropower without altering natural flows. The suspension paves the way for a more assertive water strategy — one that goes beyond security and firmly anchors itself in water sovereignty and national development.First, it gives India greater flexibility in future negotiations. The suspension signals that India will no longer exercise unilateral restraint in the face of repeated provocation. This is not a reckless move. It’s a deliberate, calculated repositioning in line with national interest.Second, India must now fast-track its water infra, particularly water storage projects in J&K. Pakistan has repeatedly used procedural tools — such as arbitration — to delay India’s plans for using its storage rights.Because of variation in temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall, India needs greater water storage capacity. At present, a large percentage of this capacity is in peninsular India. J&K has immense, untapped potential for not only hydropower and irrigation but also storage. Renewed focus on water infra here could spark a powerful economic transformation.Large-scale investments in storage facilities, irrigation systems and hydroelectric power can create jobs, boost agriculture and deliver energy security. Long-overdue development of J&K would also be a strategic win — translating policy shifts into tangible improvements in people’s lives.Third, it is time for India to finally break ground on the long-stalled Tulbul Navigation Project, suspended since 1986. For nearly four decades, the people of Kashmir have watched their developmental aspirations being sacrificed at the altar of diplomatic caution. The Kashmiris may well be forgiven for their resentment towards the Indus treaty, as they bear the weight of inaction on the Tulbul project.Fourth, with the treaty effectively on pause, India has greater strategic room to consider inter-basin water transfers. Redirecting surplus flows from Jammu & Kashmir to Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan could help balance regional water availability. This internal reallocation would strengthen India’s water resilience in the face of climate variability and changing rainfall patterns.In the long term, the IWT suspension could fundamentally alter the bilateral landscape. For India, the move serves both as its warning and calculated policy instrument, sending the message that New Delhi will no longer remain bound by agreements when faced with relentless provocation; India’s sovereign rights and national security will not be perpetually restrained.For Pakistan, the implications are deeply unsettling. The treaty has long provided a sense of diplomatic continuity and predictability in an otherwise volatile relationship. Its suspension throws into question the stability of water-sharing arrangements that are vital for Pakistan’s agri economy and overall water security. The uncertainty now hovering over the treaty’s future is not simply legal or procedural — it is existential.Much will depend on what follows. If Pakistan seriously addresses India’s long-standing concerns — both on terrorism and on India’s hydropower initiatives — some space for renegotiation may emerge. But that space will not remain open indefinitely.On India’s part, the capacity to reshape water flows hinges on how swiftly and strategically it can build the infra that has long been envisioned but never fully realised. And all of this unfolds against a backdrop of an evolving global climate, where water scarcity, ecological stress and shifting alliances are reconfiguring the rules of engagement across borders.The writer is senior fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi