The Indus Dilemma: Water, War, and Wounds of the Past
Can a treaty be unilateral? Does it come with binding obligations? What kind of treaty does India believe in, and on what grounds can a country be held responsible for actions not yet evaluated? Recently, the Foreign Secretary of India announced the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan—an act that Pakistan has termed an act of war—following the 2025 Baisaran Valley terrorist attack.
Disputes over the Indus River date back to the partition of the subcontinent, when control of the river system fell to India. India could, and often did, interrupt the water flow. In response, a solution was sought, leading to the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960. India was recognized as the upper riparian and Pakistan as the lower riparian. But why was this treaty signed in the first place? And how has it brought two nuclear-armed neighbors to such a precarious position?
A recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam—a popular tourist destination in Indian-administered Kashmir—claimed at least 26 lives and injured over 20 others. Militants opened fire in the Baisaran Valley, targeting a group of tourists. India promptly accused Pakistan of being directly or indirectly involved.
As a result, tensions between the two countries have escalated significantly. India suspended visas for Pakistani nationals and expelled Pakistani diplomats. In retaliation, Pakistan closed its airspace to Indian flights and stopped issuing visas to Indian citizens. Yet, this escalation must be understood within a deeper historical context that extends beyond mere bilateral tension.
According to the UN Charter, both upper and lower riparian states have the right to utilize shared water resources fairly and sustainably. The upper riparian, therefore, cannot legally halt the water flow to the lower riparian. Despite having withstood three wars between India and Pakistan, why does this treaty now seem fragile? What triggered the recent suspension? Was it a valid action, or is India once again leveraging international platforms to raise allegations against Pakistan—justified or not?
To understand the roots of mistrust in the region, it is important to consider the broader historical context, particularly the geopolitical dynamics during the Cold War and the post-9/11 period. During the 1980s, Pakistan played a central role as a strategic partner of the United States in supporting the Afghan resistance against Soviet forces. This alignment, influenced by regional security concerns and international strategic interests, led to the mobilization and training of fighters—commonly referred to as Mujahideen—in various parts of Pakistan’s northwest, including areas such as North and South Waziristan, Peshawar, Bajaur, and Parachinar. These efforts were aimed at countering Soviet influence in Afghanistan, and the policy was consistent with the broader objectives of Western powers during that period.
Following the Soviet withdrawal, many of these fighters dispersed, with some reportedly aligning with transnational militant networks. Statements from certain former officials, including controversial claims made in media interviews, have added to the complex discourse surrounding this period.
After the events of September 11, 2001, Pakistan again became a key ally in the global fight against terrorism. Under President Pervez Musharraf’s leadership, the country collaborated with the United States in military and intelligence operations targeting various extremist groups. These developments have had long-term implications for Pakistan’s internal security and international image. The country has faced significant challenges due to militancy and continues to rank high on global terrorism indices—issues that are the subject of ongoing debate among scholars, analysts, and policymakers.
Moreover, agriculture is the backbone of Pakistan’s economy, and water is its lifeblood. Pakistan’s irrigation system is 80% reliant on the Indus River. Already facing a water crisis, any disruption to the flow of the Indus could be catastrophic—not just for agriculture, but for national stability.
That said, India cannot unilaterally suspend the treaty. International law mandates that both parties must engage in negotiations before such a step is taken. India’s move violates this legal norm. In an era of rapid global change, both nations would do well to focus on trade, development, and mutual progress instead of being trapped in decades-old hostilities.
The United Nations, as a guardian of international peace, must not remain passive. With both India and Pakistan as member states, it is the UN’s responsibility to mediate and act before conflict turns into catastrophe. In a region where rivers sustain life, conflict must not be allowed to drown hope.
If the Indus transforms from a river of life into a fault line of war, it won’t just drown crops—it could drown diplomacy, regional stability, and the futures of millions.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Spine Times.
Rehman Yar
The author is an LLB student at Government College University, Lahore.
