logo
Indus Water Treaty Suspension: India's Hydro-Political Response To Pakistan's Proxy War Doctrine

Indus Water Treaty Suspension: India's Hydro-Political Response To Pakistan's Proxy War Doctrine

News1829-04-2025
India's suspension of the IWT signals to the world that New Delhi is prepared to reframe the contours of South Asian diplomacy
In a turn of events that lays bare the enduring proclivity of Pakistan's military-intelligence apparatus for perfidious adventurism, the subcontinent has once again been plunged into the vortex of tragedy and retribution. On 22 April, the scenic tranquillity of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir was shattered by a heinous act of terror—an attack carried out by assailants of Pakistani provenance, leaving in its wake a trail of innocent blood, most of it that of unsuspecting tourists.
This egregious violation of human sanctity provoked an unequivocal and resolute response from New Delhi. In a swift Cabinet Sub-Committee review chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 23 April, the Indian government charted a bold course of action, announced by India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. Among the arsenal of retaliatory instruments under consideration, it was the suspension of India's obligations under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) that emerged as the most telling—and symbolic—rebuke to Islamabad.
This abrupt departure from what has long been a pillar of regional diplomacy signals a watershed moment—both literally and metaphorically—in South Asia's geopolitical tapestry. For more than six decades, the IWT has served as an improbable exemplar of bilateral cooperation, a rare artefact of amity amidst a chronically discordant relationship. That India should now suspend this treaty reflects a fundamental recalibration of its strategic posture, particularly vis-à-vis Pakistan's sustained dalliance with proxy terrorism. But before one delves into the ramifications of this audacious move, one must first examine the edifice of the Indus Waters Treaty—its origins, its operational architecture, and the significance it has come to assume in both geopolitical and existential terms.
In what can only be described as an act of magnanimous restraint, India ceded exclusive control over the three Western rivers—comprising nearly 70% of the total water volume—to Pakistan, while retaining dominion over the three Eastern ones. This asymmetry, while glaring, was accepted in the spirit of regional stability and the hope that water, the most elemental of life's resources, might also irrigate the parched soil of subcontinental peace. But alas, that noble aspiration has withered.
Successive regimes in Islamabad have weaponised non-state actors, cultivating a cottage industry of jihadist terror that has repeatedly spilled across the Line of Control and stained Indian soil with blood. And yet, even amidst war and vitriol, India abided by the treaty, honouring its commitments with a stoic discipline that belied the provocations it endured. This forbearance, however, is not inexhaustible.
The Cost of Generosity
To understand the magnitude of India's concession, consider the numbers. The Eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—over which India has unfettered rights, collectively yield about 41 billion cubic metres of water annually. The Western rivers, gifted to Pakistan, deliver nearly 99 billion cubic metres—more than double the volume under Indian control. This hydrological largesse has become the very artery of Pakistan's survival. In a nation where agriculture constitutes over 25 per cent of GDP and sustains approximately 70 per cent of the populace, water is not a mere resource—it is an existential imperative. The Indus basin fuels its farms, powers its turbines, and feeds its people. To perturb this flow is to imperil the nation's economic equilibrium and societal cohesion.
And yet, Pakistan's security establishment has long treated this precious accommodation as a given—immutable, untouchable, and immune to the vagaries of geopolitical conduct. This misplaced confidence has emboldened it to pursue a duplicitous doctrine—of nurturing militant proxies even as it benefited from the benevolence of Indian water diplomacy.
The Straw That Broke the Canal
By suspending the IWT, India is sending a message steeped in symbolism but not lacking in substance. This is not merely an outburst of indignation—it is a calibrated policy shift. The message is unequivocal: India shall no longer subsidise its adversary's antagonism with strategic concessions. If Pakistan insists on fomenting unrest through insidious means, it must also be prepared to forfeit the privileges accorded to it under treaties predicated on good faith.
One may argue, with some justification, that India's current water infrastructure lacks the immediate capacity to divert or fully harness the Western rivers. The requisite reservoirs, barrages, and canal systems for such a hydrological overhaul are still under development. But in geopolitics, perception often precedes practice. The very act of invoking the treaty's suspension has rattled the strategic calculus in Islamabad and laid bare the fragility of its assumptions.
For decades, Pakistan has operated on the belief that India's strategic restraint—especially in the hydrological domain—was sacrosanct. It misread India's civility as weakness. That illusion has now been spectacularly shattered.
A Faustian Bargain That Failed
What, then, has Pakistan gained from its Faustian pact with terror? Has its strategy of bleeding India through a thousand cuts yielded dividends? On the contrary, the costs have been profound and self-defeating.
Far from 'liberating" Kashmir or coercing India into negotiations on its own terms, Pakistan finds itself internationally isolated, diplomatically suspect, and economically anaemic. Worse still, the terror groups it once mentored have now metastasised, turning their guns inward and threatening the cohesion of the Pakistani state itself. The logic of proxy warfare—premised on the deniability of violence and the expendability of cannon fodder—has unravelled. In its place stands a polity riddled with extremism, plagued by economic fragility, and mired in geopolitical ignominy. The international community, once indulgent of Pakistan's strategic anxieties, now views its double game with growing exasperation.
The Geopolitical Ripple Effect
India's suspension of the IWT, while unilateral in action, has multilateral implications. It signals to the world that New Delhi is prepared to reframe the contours of South Asian diplomacy. Water—long considered sacrosanct—can no longer be divorced.
To paraphrase the ancient wisdom of the East, one cannot bathe twice in the same river—because the water has moved on, and so has time. Pakistan, too, must now move on—from the shackles of militancy, from the dogmas of military overreach, and from the delusion that duplicity can be a permanent policy.
top videos
View all
If it fails to do so, history may not be as forgiving as the Indus once was.
The writer is an author and a columnist. His X handle is @ArunAnandLive. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
tags :
indus water treaty Indus Waters Treaty Pahalgam attack
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
April 29, 2025, 19:40 IST
News opinion Right Word | Indus Water Treaty Suspension: India's Hydro-Political Response To Pakistan's Proxy War Doctrine
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja named treasurer as Elon Musk launches ‘America Party'
Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja named treasurer as Elon Musk launches ‘America Party'

Time of India

time28 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja named treasurer as Elon Musk launches ‘America Party'

Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills A federal election commission (FEC) document is being widely shared on social media, revealing that Elon Musk has registered the America Party with the close examination, an Indian-origin name can be found on the document: Vaibhav Taneja, the chief financial officer (CFO) of is listed as the treasurer and custodian of records for Musk's new political party. His appointment to these key roles isn't surprising, considering his deep experience in financial roles and his involvement in Tesla's financial became Tesla's CFO in August 2023. Taneja joined the company in 2017 following its acquisition of SolarCity, where he held a senior finance position. Over the years, he climbed the ranks, starting as assistant corporate controller, then becoming corporate controller, chief accounting officer, and eventually announced on Sunday, that he is launching The America Party, to fight against Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax a post on X, he stated, 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.'He said, 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!'Taneja also made news recently for reportedly earning $139 million in 2024, which is far more than what other big tech executives are earning, including Microsoft's Satya Nadella and Google's Sundar Pichai.

Modi's strong message at BRICS: 'Direct or indirect support to terrorism is unacceptable'
Modi's strong message at BRICS: 'Direct or indirect support to terrorism is unacceptable'

Time of India

time28 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Modi's strong message at BRICS: 'Direct or indirect support to terrorism is unacceptable'

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a powerful address at the 17th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, called for terrorism to be condemned as a matter of principle, not convenience. He condemned the Pahalgam terror attack, urging global unity and sanctions against terrorism. PM Modi also pushed for urgent reforms in global institutions, advocating a multipolar, inclusive world order. Show more Show less

At Rio Summit, BRICS Hits Out at Tariffs, Iran Attacks and Gaza, but Stops Short of Naming US
At Rio Summit, BRICS Hits Out at Tariffs, Iran Attacks and Gaza, but Stops Short of Naming US

The Wire

time37 minutes ago

  • The Wire

At Rio Summit, BRICS Hits Out at Tariffs, Iran Attacks and Gaza, but Stops Short of Naming US

New Delhi: As the United States prepares to notify its trade partners of revised tariff rates on their imports, the BRICS grouping of emerging economies, several of whom are engaged in trade talks with Washington, voiced 'serious concerns' over 'unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures,' but stopped short of directly naming Washington. US President Donald Trump has, meanwhile, issued a stark waring from White House. 'Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy,' he posted on his social media platform, Truth Social. The leaders' joint statement, issued after the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday, reflected the difficulty negotiators from the 11 members faced in agreeing on language that could reconcile competing national interests across a range of issues, from US trade policy and UN Security Council expansion to condemning Israel for Gaza conflict and the recent Iran-Israel escalation. India is among the five founding members of BRICS, alongside Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa. In 2024, the bloc expanded to include Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates. Next year, India will be hosting the BRICS summit for the second time. While the heads of state of nearly half the member countries stayed away, key leaders present in Rio included Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto, South African president Cyril Ramaphosa and Ethiopian prime minister Abiy Ahmed. Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chinese president Xi Jinping were both absent. This was Xi's first time skipping a BRICS summit since becoming president in 2013, while Putin's absence was linked to an International Criminal Court warrant. India and terrorism While global attention was largely fixed on how the BRICS bloc would respond to US tariff measures, India was more focused on the language in the joint statement concerning terrorism and United Nations Security Council reform. The leaders' declaration 'condemn[ed] in the strongest terms' the terror attack at Pahalgam on April 22, which India had blamed on Pakistan. The incident led to a four-day military exchange between the two countries, with India targeting what it described as terror infrastructure across the border. Although the BRICS statement did not explicitly name Pakistan, it reaffirmed the group's commitment to addressing the cross-border movement of terrorists, terror financing and safe havens. This language closely reflected the wording used in last year's Kazan declaration. Both statements called for 'zero tolerance' towards terrorism, rejected 'double standards' in its handling, reiterated support for the long-pending UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism proposed by India, and underlined that terrorism should not be associated with any religion, nationality or ethnic identity. In his statement during the session on peace and security, Modi said that 'condemning terrorism must be a matter of principle, and not just of convenience'. 'If our response depends on where or against whom the attack occurred, it shall be a betrayal of humanity itself,' he added. In this image released by @MEAIndia via X on July 6, 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses a session on 'Peace and Security and Reform of Global Governance' during the 17th annual BRICS Summit, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Photo: Via PTI. India and UNSC The other issue highlighted by India is the UN Security Council reform. While BRICS declarations have routinely supported 'comprehensive reform' of the United Nations, this year's statement added that such reform should result in 'the amplified voice of the Global South'. It referred back to earlier declarations from the summits in Beijing and Johannesburg, which recorded the support of China and Russia – both permanent members of the Security Council, for the "aspirations of Brazil and India to play a greater role in the United Nations, including its Security Council." However, the declaration again stopped short of endorsing their candidacy for permanent seats. Negotiations over this paragraph were reportedly among the most difficult in the run-up to the BRICS summit, largely due to the group's recent expansion. Until 2023, South Africa had consistently been listed alongside Brazil and India as an aspirant for 'greater role' in UN. But with Egypt and Ethiopia now part of BRICS, African representation on the issue has become more complicated. Both Egypt and Ethiopia pushed for a formulation that acknowledged that the African Union had yet to decide on the continent's candidates for permanent seats, consistent with the Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration. Trump The Rio summit also unfolded under the shadow of the United States' planned reimposition of tariffs, set to kick in from July 9. President Donald Trump had earlier warned of 100% duties on imports from BRICS countries if they pushed forward with alternatives to the dollar in global trade. In April, he announced new 'reciprocal' tariffs calibrated by country, including 26 percent for India, 30 percent for South Africa and 84 percent for China. These were put on hold for 90 days, during which several countries, including India, have accelerated trade talks to limit the impact. The BRICS countries voiced "serious concerns about the rise of unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures," warning that such actions are illegal and arbitrary. The joint statement described the 'indiscriminate rising of tariffs and non-tariff measures' as part of a wider trend of trade-restrictive practices that risk reducing global trade, disrupting supply chains, and creating uncertainty in the global economy. Despite the strong language, the declaration did not explicitly blame the United States. Analysts believe this omission reflected the host country Brazil's reluctance to provoke Washington. ' Brazil wants the least amount of damage possible and to avoid drawing the attention of the Trump administration to prevent any type of risk to the Brazilian economy,' Ana Garcia, a professor at the Rio de Janeiro Federal Rural University, told Associated Press. However, this cautious approach did not appear to placate Trump. In a social media post issued shortly after the summit, he threatened to impose fresh 10% tariffs on BRICS members. It is uncertain which 'anti-American' policies he was targeting. Earlier in the year, his warnings were triggered by reports of a proposed BRICS currency – an initiative that now appears sidelined, as there was no reference to it in the final text. 'Genocide' and other wars The BRICS joint statement also avoided identifying either Iran or the United States when it referred to recent attacks on Iranian 'civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities' as a 'violation of international law and relevant resolutions of the IAEA'. Nevertheless, this marked a slight shift in tone from the bloc's earlier statement issued on June 25, which had only expressed 'grave concern over the military strikes' against Iran. In contrast, the Rio de Janeiro declaration used the term 'condemn'. On the war in Ukraine, the declaration once again avoided any direct criticism of Russia. Instead, it backed diplomatic initiatives led by Brazil and China, and a group of African nations. The statement also referred to attacks on Russian regions such as Bryansk and Kursk, but did so without assigning blame or identifying the perpetrators. The most direct criticism in the statement was aimed at Israel. The leaders expressed 'grave concern' over the military operations in Gaza and 'denounced the Israeli attacks against humanitarian operations, facilities, personnel and distribution points.' Although the host Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had referred to the situation in Gaza as ' genocide ' in his remarks during the summit, that term did not appear in the final declaration. The BRICS joint statement echoed the language of a recent United Nations General Assembly resolution by condemning 'all violations of international humanitarian law, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare.' India had unexpectedly abstained on that resolution, which had led the opposition to accuse the government of losing moral compass. In addition, the bloc called on all parties to engage 'in good faith' to secure an 'immediate, comprehensive and permanent ceasefire in Gaza,' ensure the release of all hostages, withdraw Israeli forces fully, and allow unhindered access of humanitarian aid. The declaration also reaffirmed support for full UN membership for Palestine and reiterated BRICS' 'unwavering commitment to the two-state solution.' However, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi later stated on his official Telegram channel that Tehran had registered reservations about the reference to the two-state solution, as Iran does not recognise Israel. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store