In a world fractured by political rivalries, wars of words, and shifting global allegiances, it is often the most elemental resources, land, air, and water; that bear the brunt of conflict. Yet, of these, water occupies a unique place: it is both sustenance and sovereignty. The Indus River system, coursing through the rugged terrains of the Himalayas and flowing into the plains of Pakistan, is not just a waterway it is the artery of an entire civilization. On April 27, when Pakistan-Administered Kashmir was inundated by an unexpected surge of water from the Jhelum, followed days later by another release from India into the Chenab without prior notice, it was not nature’s fury that alarmed the region, it was India’s.
The consecutive releases occurred alongside India’s sudden decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), further intensifying tensions in a region already teetering on the edge of geopolitical instability. The move, while strategically timed and theatrically announced, not only breached the treaty’s foundational spirit but also teetered on the edge of what international law might define as an act of war. Water, the most basic of rights, has become India’s instrument of coercion, and the consequences stretch far beyond the flooded fields of Kashmir.
The Indus is more than a river: it’s a lifeline, a shared heritage, and a symbol of coexistence. India’s unilateral suspension of this promise is an attack not just on Pakistan, but on the principle of peaceful cohabitation. Pakistan’s defense of its water rights is a rightful stand against rising tyranny. The world must act now before rivers dry and fields wither to protect treaties, dignity, and the fundamental right to survival
Brokered by the World Bank in 1960, the Indus Waters Treaty remains a cornerstone of South Asian stability, allocating the western rivers, Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, to Pakistan, and the eastern tributaries to India. Despite decades of conflict, the treaty endured as a symbol of restraint between two nuclear powers. But in 2025, India unilaterally suspended the treaty, tying its reinstatement to political demands unrelated to water-sharing. This move effectively weaponizes water, exploiting India’s upstream position to jeopardize 80 percent of Pakistan’s agriculture and millions of livelihoods. Such action not only destabilizes the region but also violates international law, including the ‘no harm rule’ and principles of equitable water use.
International law, particularly the principles emerging from cases like the Island of Palmas and the Trail Smelter Arbitration, emphasizes that states must refrain from causing transboundary harm. Article 7(1) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses solidifies this by obliging countries to prevent significant harm to co-riparian states. The obligations do not merely rest on abstract ideals; they are functional guidelines that require proactive cooperation, timely notification, and an unflinching commitment to mutual benefit and good faith. India’s abrupt water releases into Jhelum and Chenab rivers without any advance warning to Pakistan not only violated these norms but also represented a gross dereliction of international responsibilities.
The timing right after India’s suspension of the IWT further underscores the calculated nature of the provocation. Even if India attempts to justify its action under Article 49(1) of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) as a form of lawful countermeasure, this defense collapses under scrutiny. For a countermeasure to be legitimate, it must be proportional, temporary, and aimed at inducing compliance with the law not engineered to punish a population by threatening their access to water. India’s actions, therefore, cannot be couched in legality; they are a manifestation of economic terrorism, aimed at coercion through control.
India’s weaponization of water threatens far more than Pakistan’s agriculture; it risks unraveling South Asian stability. As Pakistan faces mounting environmental stress, water scarcity could trigger a humanitarian crisis marked by food insecurity, displacement, and economic disruption, with consequences spilling across borders. The World Bank and international community must not remain silent; inaction will only encourage future violations and weaken the foundations of global order. This is no longer just about the Indus, it’s about upholding the integrity of international treaties and preventing dangerous precedents in global diplomacy.
In the face of grave provocation, Pakistan has responded with measured firmness, vowing to pursue all diplomatic, legal, and political avenues to restore the Indus Waters Treaty and prevent the use of water as a tool of coercion. While condemning India’s actions as a breach of treaty and a potential act of war, Islamabad remains committed to dialogue and peace. Appealing to the UN, international courts, and the World Bank, Pakistan seeks not just resolution, but reinforcement of the global principle that water is a basic human right. In an age of climate fragility, India’s strategy risks global condemnation, not compliance.
Ultimately, the crisis surrounding the Indus Waters Treaty is not merely about hydrology or geopolitics; it is a test of humanity’s collective conscience. If one nation can deny another its life source on the basis of disputed political claims, what then remains sacred in the web of international relations? India’s unilateralism is an affront not only to Pakistan but to every principle of fair play, cooperation, and mutual respect that underpins international diplomacy. The Indus is more than a river: it’s a lifeline, a shared heritage, and a symbol of coexistence. India’s unilateral suspension of this promise is an attack not just on Pakistan, but on the principle of peaceful cohabitation. Pakistan’s defense of its water rights is a rightful stand against rising tyranny. The world must act now before rivers dry and fields wither to protect treaties, dignity, and the fundamental right to survival.
-The author is an independent researcher who writes on issues concerning national and regional security, focusing on matters having critical impact in these milieus. She can be reached at [email protected]
