The decision, taken after a meeting of the Indian Cabinet Committee on Wednesday, comes in response to the Pahalgam attack, making 26 people dead.
Read this | Terror Strike throws blanket of gloom about the tourist landscape of Kashmir
Mint takes out how India's Move Water Water reformulates a strategic tool, investigates the legal arguments behind the suspension and explains why Pakistan may have a limited space to take revenge.
A brief history of the treaty
Signed in 1960 by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan, the IWT was banned by the World Bank and is one of the world's most sustainable similarities for sharing water. It controls the use of the Indus River system, which comes from Tibet and flows through India to Pakistan.
The roots of the Convention traces back to British India, which built a huge irrigation network in Punjab and Sindh. After distribution in 1947, India retained electricity control, while Pakistan inherited a large part of the electric channel infrastructure. A temporary standstill agreement kept the water until March 31, 1948. When India briefly suspended the stocks, Pakistan sought international mediation, which brought the World Bank.
After almost a decade of negotiations, the IWT was signed on September 19, 1960. Under his conditions, India received exclusive rights to the three Eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – while Pakistan got control over the three Western rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. The permanent Indus committee was established to manage data exchange and resolve disputes.
How the treaty works
The IWT divides the six rivers of the Indus basin into two groups. India has full rights over the three Eastern rivers, while the western rivers are largely reserved for Pakistan. However, India is permitted that non-consumer use of Western rivers-such as hydroelectric power generation, domestic use and limited irrigation-under strict technical parameters.
The Convention consists of 12 articles and several appendices that describe rules for the use of water use, design limitations for infrastructure projects and mechanisms for dispute resolution. It draws up the permanent Indus committee to supervise the implementation, appoints a neutral expert for technical disagreements and draws up a court for legal disputes – where the World Bank plays a facilitating role in all three.
Beyond flashpoints
Although the IWT has endured as a rare example of cooperation between India and Pakistan, the tensions are occasionally flaring up. After the URI terror attack of 2016, India stated that it would “judge” the treaty. After the Pulwama attack of 2019, India accelerated vapor projects such as Shahpur Kandi and UJH, causing fears in Pakistan to arouse over reduced water flows.
Read this | Kashmir Simmers, but Pakistan's game has no winners
Pakistan has objected hard to Indian hydroelpacht projects on the western rivers – such as Kishanganga and Ratle – and claims to be contrary. These disputes have led to arbitration procedures and negotiations at expert level. In 2023, India formally issued notifications to Pakistan, first looking for a treaty adjustment and then a deeper dissatisfaction with a deeper dissatisfaction with the mechanisms of the Convention.
Legitution of the suspension
The IWT lacks an exit clause, making it binding unless both countries agree to change or terminate it – to “suspend” to “suspend” instead of formally.
Legal experts told Mint that India can mention the treaty of Vienna treaties (1969), which makes suspension or termination of treaties possible under exceptional circumstances such as a material infringement or a fundamental change in circumstances.
“These grounds are also recognized in the guidelines and standard operational procedures (SOPs) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the conclusion of international treaties,” notes Rohit Jain, managing partner at Singhania & Co. “The guidelines reflect how India applies the provisions of the Vienna convention in practice.”
“The Vienna Convention is the primary international legal framework for treaties, and many of the principles are considered an ordinary international law. This means that they remain applicable, even if a country is not a formal signer. Suspension is a temporary measure, but if it is challenged, India can propose the extraordinary circumstances of the recent terrorist, employees.
What is crucial, however, is that this does not result in the water flow to Pakistan – one of the fundamental circumstances of the treaty – immediately blocked or disabled, said Shaneen Parikh, partner (head of international arbitration), Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.
“As the cases are, legal technical details are because of the absence of a clause that allows only one of the states to leave the Convention something that it has indicated that it is willing to tackle in the interest of the greater good and public safety in the light of terrorist threats,” Parikh said. “We should also remember that last year India is reportedly also issued a formal notification to Pakistan who sought an evaluation and adaptation of the Convention as a result of a fundamental change of circumstances, indicating that the position of India is consistent about the need for recovery.”
Why it matters
The strategic leverage of India is clear: it can block inspections, ignore restrictions from the past and now perform the flushing of reservoirs – critical of lady efficiency. These actions can disrupt the water flows, especially during sensitive periods such as Pakistan's sowing season, which may affect agricultural production.
However, experts warn that India lacks the infrastructure to fully distribute Western river flows, and long -term effects would require considerable investments.
Shweta Singh, associate professor at the Department of International Relations, South Asian University, emphasized the broader implications of the relocation of India. “India has put the Indus Waters treaty in anticipation … Although this India can offer a diplomatic benefit in the short term, especially if the regulated water flows stops for Pakistan's irrigation and drinking needs during peak months, this may not be the best strategic relocation in the long term,” she said.
“Water, and in particular the IWT, cannot be viewed closely. This decision cannot send the right signal for the collaboration between the Transboundary river in the region,” she added. “.over, although India holds an upper-riparian position in relation to Pakistan, it is a middle riparian state in the larger Indus basin. China, which controls both the Indus and Brahmaputra rivers, warned Singh in a future conflict, warned Singh.
Singh also noted that India is currently missing the infrastructure to fully distract the natural flow of the Indus. Early attempts to do this can lead to floods in Indian regions. Given the topography of the region, building sufficient water storage infrastructure will not be an easy task in the near future, she added.
Why it matters for Pakistan
The dependence on Pakistan of the Indus system is existential. The river basin supports 90% of its agriculture, contributes almost a quarter of GDP to and powers of hydroelpacht projects such as Mangla and Tarbela. A report from the World Bank of 2021 warned of an imminent 32% water shortage by 2025.
Any disturbance of Indus streams – especially during the growing season – could lead to food insecurity, energy shortages and the economic crisis of Pakistan further deepen. Cities such as Lahore, Karachi and Multan also rely on the pelvis for drinking water and industrial use.
What is the following?
India's step will probably cause international attention. Although Pakistan has not yet responded formally, it can approach the World Bank, the UN or even the International Court of Justice. If India acts further than the suspension – as by distracting water – it can be seen as a violation of the treaty.
Read also | Mint Primer | Terror in J&K: What explains the sharp increase
Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, who spoke to a private television channel on Wednesday, called India's approach 'immature' and 'hasty', the Press Trust of India reported, with reference to the Dawn.
For now, the suspension is sending a clear message: India is willing to challenge long -term standards, with even apolitical pacts such as water exchange to increase the costs of cross -border terrorism.
