April 27, 2025 | New Delhi, India | 03:28 PM IST
India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan on April 23, 2025, marks a seismic shift in bilateral relations, following the deadly Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people. This move, aimed at pressuring Pakistan to curb cross-border terrorism, has sparked global concern over its impact on water security, agriculture, and regional stability. In this blog post, we’ll break down the reasons behind the suspension, its immediate and long-term effects, and what it means for India-Pakistan relations, crafted to align with Google’s E-A-T guidelines for authoritative, SEO-optimized content.
Why Did India Suspend the Indus Waters Treaty?
On April 22, 2025, a horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam’s Baisaran Valley, Jammu and Kashmir, claimed 26 lives, mostly tourists, in an assault by The Resistance Front (TRF), a group India links to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. The attack targeted Hindu tourists, escalating communal tensions and shattering the region’s fragile peace. India’s investigation revealed “cross-border linkages,” prompting the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to suspend the IWT—a 64-year-old agreement brokered by the World Bank in 1960.
Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced the suspension, stating, “The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.” The decision is part of a broader set of measures, including border closures and diplomatic downgrades, reflecting India’s frustration with Pakistan’s alleged role in fostering terrorism.
What Is the Indus Waters Treaty?
Signed on September 19, 1960, the IWT allocates water from six rivers in the Indus basin between India and Pakistan. India controls the eastern rivers—Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi (33 million acre-feet or 41 billion cubic meters annually)—while Pakistan gets 80% of the flow from the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab (135 million acre-feet or 99 billion cubic meters). The treaty, which survived three wars and decades of hostility, allows India limited non-consumptive use of western rivers (e.g., hydropower) but prohibits blocking or significantly altering flows.
The treaty also mandates data sharing on water levels, flood forecasts, and project plans, ensuring transparency for both nations. India’s suspension halts these obligations, raising fears of water scarcity in Pakistan, a lower riparian state heavily dependent on the Indus system.
Immediate Impacts of the Suspension
On Pakistan
Pakistan’s agriculture, which accounts for 25% of its GDP, relies on the Indus system for 80% of its irrigated land—16 million hectares supporting 237 million people. Major cities like Karachi and Lahore, along with hydropower plants like Tarbela and Mangla, depend on these rivers. While India lacks the infrastructure to immediately stop water flows, the suspension ends critical data sharing on water levels and flood forecasts, which Pakistan needs for irrigation and disaster planning. This could exacerbate Pakistan’s existing water stress, with per capita availability already declining rapidly.
Pakistan’s leadership, including PM Shehbaz Sharif, called the suspension an “act of war,” warning of “full force” retaliation. The country has also suspended the Simla Agreement and closed its airspace to Indian flights, signaling a tit-for-tat escalation.
On India
India’s move is largely symbolic in the short term, as it lacks the storage capacity to divert significant water from the western rivers. However, the suspension allows India to stop sharing hydrological data and accelerate hydropower projects like Pakal Dul, Ratle, and Sawalkot on the Chenab and Jhelum rivers, previously delayed by Pakistani objections. This could bolster India’s energy security in Jammu and Kashmir but risks environmental and local pushback due to the region’s challenging terrain.
Long-Term Implications
For Pakistan
Over time, India could build infrastructure to store or divert water, potentially reducing flows to Pakistan. Projects like the Ujh Multipurpose Project on the Ravi could store up to 925 million cubic meters, impacting downstream availability. Such actions, which could take 5–10 years due to funding and ecological concerns, would devastate Pakistan’s agriculture, reduce crop yields (wheat, rice, sugarcane), and fuel unrest in Punjab and Sindh provinces. The lack of flood data also heightens risks during the monsoon season, starting in June.
For India
India gains strategic leverage but faces challenges. Building large reservoirs on western rivers requires significant investment and time, and could draw international scrutiny, especially from the World Bank, the treaty’s guarantor. Domestically, the move has united political parties but exposed security lapses in Kashmir, with critics like Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah calling it an “intelligence failure.” The suspension also risks escalating tensions with Pakistan, a nuclear-armed neighbor, potentially leading to military conflict.
Regional Stability
The suspension threatens to unravel decades of water-sharing cooperation, a rare area of stability between the two nations. Pakistan may seek World Bank arbitration, though the treaty lacks a unilateral exit clause. International law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, allows suspension under “fundamental change of circumstances,” such as Pakistan’s alleged support for terrorism, but the global community—already vocal with leaders like US President Donald Trump supporting India—may pressure both sides to de-escalate.
Critical Analysis: Is This a Strategic Win for India?
India’s suspension of the IWT sends a strong message but has limitations. While it pressures Pakistan economically, the immediate impact on water flows is minimal due to India’s infrastructure constraints. The move risks humanitarian fallout in Pakistan, potentially alienating global opinion, and could provoke retaliation, as Pakistan’s warnings suggest. Moreover, the focus on Pakistan may deflect from India’s own security failures in Kashmir, where tourist areas like Baisaran lacked adequate protection.
The treaty’s suspension also raises ethical questions. Weaponizing water, a shared resource, could set a dangerous precedent in transboundary water management, especially in a region already grappling with climate change and water scarcity. India’s narrative of Pakistan’s involvement, while plausible, lacks public evidence, fueling skepticism about whether this is a genuine counter-terrorism measure or a political maneuver to rally domestic support.
What’s Next for India-Pakistan Relations?
In the short term, India will likely focus on military operations to neutralize the Pahalgam attackers, with a Rs 20 lakh reward already announced. Diplomatically, India may push for Pakistan’s isolation at forums like the UN, leveraging international support. Pakistan, facing domestic pressure from farmers and political instability, may escalate rhetoric or seek legal recourse through the World Bank, though its options are limited as the downstream state.
Long-term, both nations must address the root causes of terrorism and instability in Kashmir. For India, this means bolstering security and intelligence in tourist areas while avoiding communal polarization. For Pakistan, credible action against terror groups is essential to restore trust. Without dialogue, the suspension of the IWT could spiral into a broader conflict, with water becoming a flashpoint in an already volatile region.