Amid the tremendously escalated tension between India and Pakistan, the consequence of the outrageous genocide i.e., the brutal killing of 26 innocent Tourists and a local Kashmiri who was trying to save the very innocent lives in an open-fire by four Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists (on 22^nd April); on 23^rd April 2025 the Foreign Secretary of India Vikram Misri formally declared the decision by stating that the treaty would remain ‘in abeyance’ until Pakistan took ‘credible and irrevocable’ steps to cease its support for cross-border terrorism. This is the first instance of the treaty being suspended since its inception, despite decades of armed conflict and diplomatic strain between the two countries. Further on 24^th April, Debashree Mukherjee, India’s Secretary of Water Resources, wrote to her Pakistani counterpart, Syed Ali Murtaza, that India was keeping the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance with “immediate effect”. Subsequently, on 25^th April, the Union Minister of Jal Shakti Chandrakant Raghunath Patil said that the Modi government is taking measure to not let even 'a drop of water' go to Pakistan, which of course added the fuel to Pakistan’s hostility and perplexity.

Usually, by the very expression “Indus Water Treaty”, it signifies that the treaty which was signed in Karachi on 19th September 1960, between India and Pakistan and brokered by the World Bank. The treaty fixed and delimited the rights and obligations of both countries concerning the use of the waters of the Indus River system. It gave control of the waters of the western rivers - the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab to Pakistan and those of the eastern rivers - the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej to India; which have a total mean annual flow of 99 billion cubic metres, was given to Pakistan. India received control of 30% of the total water carried by the rivers, while Pakistan received 70%. The treaty includes a Permanent Indus Commission and a three-tier dispute resolution mechanism. The very Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) was established, consisting of one commissioner from each country. Commissioners meet once a year to discuss any concerns, with the World Bank acting as a neutral observer and arbitrator. At present, Darpan Talwar serves as the Commissioner (Indus) within the Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Ministry of Jal Shakti. Syed Muhammad Mehar Ali Shah serves as the Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters. The World Bank does not appoint a permanent representative to the Indus Waters Treaty. Instead, personnel are assigned on a case-by-case basis.

The Preamble of the treaty spells as follows -

“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, being equally desirous of attaining the most complete and satisfactory utilisation of the waters of the Indus system of rivers and recognising the need, therefore, of fixing and delimiting, in a spirit of goodwill and friendship, the rights and obligations of each in relation to the other concerning the use of these waters and of making provision for the settlement, in a cooperative spirit, of all such questions as may hereafter arise in regard to the interpretation or application of the provisions agreed upon herein, have resolved to conclude a Treaty in furtherance of these objectives, and for this purpose have named as their plenipotentiaries :

The Government of India : Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, and

The Government of Pakistan : Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan, H.P., H.J., President of Pakistan…..”

‘Suspension’, not ‘Termination’

Now, diving into the crux part of it, suspending the treaty ‘in abeyance’ means it has not been cancelled or ended but is currently on a temporary delay. This enables India to halt its commitments under the agreement without officially exiting it an important diplomatic tactic considering the treaty's legal framework. Often it puts a layman in trouble in understand the thin gap between ‘suspension’ and

‘termination’. It does not permit, but it does not prohibit, also. With no prohibition imposed on the parties from keeping the treaty in abeyance, general international law governs the parties.

The suspension may have significant effects on Pakistan, which depends greatly on the Indus River system for farming, especially in the Punjab region. As India is no longer required to provide flood data, the chances of unexpected flooding rise, particularly in the monsoon season. The Indus River system is essential for the geopolitical and economic stability of the area. The boundaries of division were marked across this basin, placing India as the upstream nation and Pakistan downstream, intensifying a historical water-sharing conflict. Currently, India does not possess the infrastructure needed to instantly halt or redirect river flows for its own purposes. Nonetheless, the suspension enhances India's long-term flexibility regarding the water resources of the Indus system.

Key Occurrences in the Timeline of the Indus Waters Treaty

1947 Water Dispute and Partition

Pakistan became the lower riparian after the Indus River basin was divided between India and Pakistan during the 1947 British Indian split. Water use disputes resulted from significant irrigation headworks at Madhopur (Ravi River) and Ferozepur (Sutlej River) falling inside Indian borders.

1948 Interim Accord and Water Withholding

India began preventing water from entering Pakistan after the Standstill Agreement ended on April 1, 1948. As a temporary solution, an Inter-Dominion Accord on May 4, 1948, required India to supply water to Pakistan in return for payment.

1951 Pakistan's UN Complaint and World Bank Mediation

In 1951, Pakistan took the water problem to the United Nations, accusing India of cutting off the water supply. To resolve the conflict, the World Bank, under the direction of President Eugene Black, began technical talks and mediation.

1960 Indus Waters Treaty signing

On September 19, 1960, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Pakistani President Ayub Khan, and World Bank official W.A.B. Illiff ultimately signed the deal after nine years of deliberation. On April 1, 1960, the pact went into effect retroactively.

Post-Treaty Developments

The three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) were split between Pakistan and India by the treaty, while the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) were split between India and Pakistan. The Permanent Indus Commission was also established for ongoing collaboration and conflict settlement.

Is it acceptable to suspend the pact unilaterally?

It is impossible to unilaterally change the IWT. According to Article XII, its terms "may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments." It also makes clear that only a "duly ratified treaty" approved by both parties may end the agreement. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), 1969, the main accord governing agreements between nations, does not contain or recognize the phrase "hold in abeyance," as used by India in its letter to Pakistan.

A "fundamental change of circumstances" from those that existed at the time of the treaty's conclusion can result in its repudiation, according to Article 62 of the VCLT. In the Fisheries Jurisdiction Cases (United Kingdom v. Iceland; Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) confirmed that Article 62 codifies customary international law and is therefore binding regardless of formal ratification, despite the fact that India is not a party to the VCLT and Pakistan has signed but not ratified it.

With its letter stating that "fundamental changes in the circumstances" need a "reassessment of obligations" under the IWT, India seems to be applying this approach. For example, it mentioned the "need to accelerate clean energy development," "significantly altered population demographics," and Pakistan's purported inability to act in "good faith." Yet, the bar for what constitutes a "fundamental change in circumstances" has been raised by the ICJ's decisions. In the 1997 Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project dispute between Hungary and Slovakia over a dam, Hungary claimed that the treaty should be terminated due to political and economic changes as well as the possibility of an environmental catastrophe. The ICJ, however, dismissed these claims, pointing out that the treaty's main goal of cooperative energy production had little to do with the political and economic shifts. Furthermore, it was decided that any possible environmental hazards were not wholly unexpected and, as a result, could not be classified as a "fundamental change of circumstances."

The exception under Article 62 does not cover later external developments; rather, it is limited to modifications in the conditions that existed at the time the treaty was concluded. Given Pakistan's repeated violations of India's territorial sovereignty through its financing of terrorism, it would be wiser for India to suspend the IWT as a countermeasure under international law.

Sudden Impact on Pakistan

The rivers of the Indus basin are essential to about 80% of Pakistan's agricultural production and around a third of its hydroelectric production. But according to experts, India does not have the vast canal networks and storage infrastructure required to stop tens of billions of cubic meters of water from flowing into the western rivers.

"Run-of-the-river hydropower facilities, which lack the potential for large-scale storage, make up the majority of India's infrastructure. The uncertainty surrounding water flow, however, has the potential to have a significant negative impact on Pakistan's primarily agrarian economy. Pakistan may face major interruptions if India starts controlling the flow with its current infrastructure, especially during the approaching summer when water supplies are already at their lowest.

India will now examine "options it has never contemplated" under the IWT, including redesigning its hydroelectric initiatives to enhance water storage capability and implementing 'drawdown flushing' of its reservoirs. The sudden discharge of vast amounts of water without advance notice may lead to considerable harm downstream in Pakistan. Of all non-kinetic measures, this is likely the most severe action India might choose. Regarding the next steps, it seems improbable that the global community will apply significant pressure on India, since Pakistan must first make credible efforts to alleviate India's worries about its support for cross-border terrorism. In the end, Pakistan will struggle to obtain assistance from the World Bank unless India agrees to collaborate.

Pakistan's Financial Repercussions

Pakistan has been striving to emerge from a severe economic crisis characterized by elevated inflation and diminished foreign exchange. On April 24, the World Bank revised its growth prediction for Pakistan to 2.7 percent for this fiscal year, mentioning ongoing economic stabilization but ongoing limitations due to strict monetary and fiscal policies.

According to Dawn, the World Bank previously anticipated that Pakistan's economy would expand by 2.8 percent in the ongoing fiscal year, as stated in its Pakistan Development Update (PDU) published last October.

In a statement released on Wednesday, the World Bank indicated that growth would continue to face numerous downside risks but projected that the rate of economic growth would rise to 3.1 percent in the upcoming fiscal year (FY26) and 3.4 percent in FY27.

In early March, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) sanctioned a loan of $1.3 billion for Pakistan to combat climate change and finalized a staff-level agreement regarding the initial review of the previously approved USD 7 billion loan.

The recently established agreement covers a period of 28 months under the Climate Resilience and Sustainability Facility, which seeks to assist countries in tackling climate issues while also pledging to reform, PTI reported.

Moreover, releasing $1 billion for the nation through the $7 billion bailout initiative would increase the total disbursements to $2 billion.

The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) Suspended

Bilateral relations between India and Pakistan glimpses a staggering mayhem in 2025 when the 64year old Indus Waters Treaty has been suspended.