In the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam terrorist attack, which tragically claimed the lives of several Indian security personnel and reignited a wave of national outrage, attention has once again shifted to a strategic tool often overlooked in the broader India–Pakistan conflict narrative—the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Signed in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank, this landmark watersharing agreement between the two neighbours has remarkably endured through decades of war, diplomatic standoffs, and cross-border hostilities. Yet, in the face of shifting geopolitics, recurring terror incidents, and rising calls for strategic recalibration, a pressing question re-emerges: Is the Indus Waters Treaty an outdated relic of Cold War-era diplomacy, or can it be repurposed as a powerful instrument of modern statecraft?
A Treaty from a Different Time
When the IWT was signed, water was largely viewed through a humanitarian lens, distinct from the strategic considerations that dominate today’s security discussions. The treaty allocated exclusive use of the three eastern rivers—Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej—to India, while granting Pakistan rights over the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. Despite multiple wars and enduring hostility, the treaty has survived, often hailed as a rare testament to resilience amidst conflict. However, in today’s climate, where terrorism continues to spill across borders, the premise of unconditional water-sharing is being increasingly challenged. The Pahalgam attack has reignited debate within India over the treaty’s contemporary validity and strategic utility.
Climate Change and Strategic Realignment
Climate change has dramatically altered the environmental landscape in which the IWT operates. Melting glaciers, unpredictable monsoons, and frequent droughts have intensified the competition for water resources in the subcontinent. Pakistan, in particular, is one of the most waterstressed countries in the world, according to World Bank and IMF assessments. Given these realities, many Indian analysts and policymakers argue that water must now be viewed not just as a cooperative asset, but as a strategic lever. The logic is simple: if Pakistan continues to engage in proxy warfare and cross-border aggression, India must consider all forms of pressure— economic, diplomatic, and hydrological.
Rhetoric vs. Reality: Can India “Turn Off the Taps”?
Following every major terrorist incident—from Uri (2016) to Pulwama (2019), and now Pahalgam (2025)— calls within India for a tougher stance on the Indus Waters Treaty have intensified. Public sentiment often swings towards dramatic action, with demands that India “turn off the taps” to Pakistan as a form of punitive pressure. However, while emotionally resonant, such a course is riddled with complex legal and diplomatic challenges. The IWT is a binding international agreement, brokered with World Bank involvement. Any unilateral move to abrogate or violate its provisions could tarnish India’s hard-earned reputation as a responsible global actor committed to the rule of law. It would invite diplomatic backlash, potentially strain relations with key allies, and embolden Pakistan’s narrative of victimhood on international platforms. Moreover, such actions could have unintended regional consequences. China, which controls vital upstream portions of the Brahmaputra and other rivers flowing into India, could retaliate by disrupting water flows in the northeast—a vulnerability India can ill afford to ignore. Thus, impulsive “tap-turning” is neither legally feasible nor strategically prudent. Instead, India must approach the IWT not with emotional reaction, but with calculated, long-term strategy: leveraging what is permissible under the treaty while preparing for contingencies with diplomatic and infrastructural readiness.
A Tactical Middle Path: Maximum Utilisation Within Treaty Limits
Recognising the impracticality of unilateral abrogation, India’s best path lies in maximising its entitled usage of the eastern rivers— Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej—under the existing framework of the treaty. Several critical infrastructure projects have been conceived but languish due to bureaucratic delays, environmental concerns, or political inertia. Notable among them are the Shahpur Kandi Dam Project in Punjab, the Ujh Multipurpose Project in Jammu and Kashmir, and the proposed Second Ravi-Beas Link. Each of these projects is pivotal not only for meeting domestic irrigation and power needs but also for ensuring that India’s rightful share of water is fully harnessed before any surplus flows across the border. Fast-tracking these projects through special task forces, single-window clearances, and strategic funding can significantly alter the water dynamic. Doing so would allow India to tighten its control over eastern river flows, without violating treaty obligations—thus exercising “hydrological assertiveness” within the boundaries of international law. This approach would also act as quiet but potent strategic signalling to Pakistan: that while India remains committed to lawful behaviour, it will not hesitate to safeguard its national interests with full resolve.
Legal and Diplomatic Complexities
The Indus Waters Treaty, though bilateral in nature, operates under the watchful eye of the World Bank, which acts as a neutral facilitator. Recent disputes, such as those over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, have underscored the legal intricacies involved. India has consistently maintained that Pakistan has weaponised the treaty’s arbitration mechanisms to stymie India’s legitimate development activities. By dragging New Delhi into prolonged legal battles, Islamabad aims to slow India’s hydroelectric ambitions and sustain its dependency on Indian generosity. Conversely, Pakistan has increasingly sought to internationalise the water issue, linking it to the broader Kashmir conflict—a move that contravenes the treaty’s core principle of bilateral resolution. For India, this highlights the need for a robust, proactive legal and diplomatic posture. New Delhi must continue to defend its infrastructure projects rigorously within the treaty framework, expose Pakistan’s obstructionism internationally, and reinforce the principle that bilateral agreements must be honoured in spirit and letter.
The Treaty as Leverage in a Broader Strategy
The time has come for India to stop viewing the Indus Waters Treaty in isolation. Instead, it should be integrated into a comprehensive national security framework that links diplomatic engagement, economic instruments, and strategic signalling. Rather than “weaponising” water irresponsibly—which would damage India’s image and potentially destabilise the region—India must practice calibrated assertiveness. Maximum lawful utilisation of water resources, transparent communication of its intentions to the international community, and conditional diplomacy tied to terror-free engagement can transform the IWT into a quiet but effective strategic lever. The goal is not to deprive ordinary Pakistani citizens of water, but to convey clearly that cooperation cannot be taken for granted when hostilities persist. In this way, India can reshape the narrative: making it clear that peace is not a passive gift, but a mutual responsibility with tangible benefits and consequences.
Conclusion: Retooling, Not Repealing
The Indus Waters Treaty, once hailed as a diplomatic marvel, must now evolve to reflect the hard realities of a changed world. Its continued relevance hinges not merely on tradition, but on mutual respect, responsible governance, and strategic foresight. India need not dismantle the treaty; instead, it must recalibrate its approach—asserting its rightful claims and enforcing compliance with modern strategic imperatives. By doing so, India sends an unmistakable message: that its commitment to peace is strong, but not unconditional; and that enduring peace cannot flow indefinitely without accountability, reciprocity, and a recalibrated balance of power. India need not dismantle the treaty; instead, it must recalibrate its engagement—asserting its rightful claims, enhancing domestic utilisation, and reinforcing accountability. In doing so, India sends an unmistakable message: that its commitment to peace is firm, but not infinite; and that true stability cannot flow perpetually without reciprocity, compliance, and a revised balance of power attuned to today’s geopolitical and environmental challenges. Dr. Rubina Khan & Shivanshu Katare, Assistant Professor (Law), Jaipur National University
