The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), at one point considered a model of cooperation between enemies, now hangs in a calculated state of limbo. Legal nuances, shifting geopolitics, and the constant threat of cross-border terrorism have all been factors in its current stalemate. For India, the moment is both a strategic chance to reassess the accord and also a dilemma over how hard to lean.
Why India Hasn’t Walked Away Yet
According to top government sources, India’s current position, stalling but not walking away from the treaty is a deliberate, tactical move.It’s aimed at keeping diplomatic pressure on while steering clear of the consequences of a total abrogation.
Legally, the framework of the treaty does not enable unilateral suspension. Article XII(4) of the agreement provides that the treaty is operative “until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose.” Accordingly, since India hasn’t formally rescinded the agreement, Pakistan can’t hold it guilty of default.
As one Indian senior official put it, “It’s a treaty without an exit ramp. That’s by design but it doesn’t reflect the current reality of state-sponsored terrorism.”
India’s Legal Safeguards
India has made efforts to immunize itself against international legal repercussions. India, in 2019, filed a declaration with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) excluding disputes over Commonwealth-related matters and over matters of national security. The move has the practical effect of precluding Pakistan from pursuing legal remedies at the ICJ.
India also considers its current stance a legal countermeasure under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in reference to continued support for terrorism by Pakistan as a basis. Though identifying responsibility for specific terror attacks is complicated, the larger pattern of state-sponsored extremism provides the foundation for India’s diplomatic and moral case.
We are not ripping up the treaty, but we are sending a message that terrorism does not pay—neither in war nor in water-sharing,” another senior official said.
Pakistan’s Vulnerabilities and the World Bank’s Role
Geography is the weakness of Pakistan. Being a lower riparian country, it is at the mercy of Indian-held rivers—the Chenab and Jhelum, running through Jammu & Kashmir. Despite making threats in the past, such as declaring water diversion an ‘act of war’ in 2008, Pakistan has resorted to diplomacy rather than action. This restraint is a sign of both its strategic limitations and the deterrent strength of India.
The World Bank, a designated facilitator of the treaty, also has limited influence. It may nominate neutral experts or arbitrators, but their decisions are not enforceable. The protracted battles over Kishanganga and Ratle dam projects bear out this toothlessness.
India’s Calculated Restraint
India’s calculated restraint in not canceling the treaty altogether has several purposes.
First, by not applying the treaty, India exercises strategic flexibility without provoking international opprobrium. Unilateral withdrawal might expose India to international law or human rights criticism over access to water.
Second, this policy continues diplomatic pressure against Pakistan without driving escalation. India’s stronger economy and increasing world power allow it to stand firm while showing restraint.
Finally, through the exercise of restraint in not making dramatic gestures, India promotes its international reputation as a responsible and stable power—vital when it is aiming for leadership positions within organizations such as the G20, BRICS, and UN.
What the Future Holds
The IWT break symbolizes a larger trend in India’s foreign policy where patient pressure is being exercised in combination. Water, previously considered untouchable even in times of war, is now being used to convey a message: sustained patronage of terrorism has its price.
While the rivers keep flowing, the diplomatic tide has firmly shifted. India has kept the door ajar for redrawing the rules if provocations continue or diplomatic lines snap completely.
