The neighboring country, Pakistan, has forced India into three wars and, one Kargil incursion. However, Pakistan has lost all those wars. Indeed, we are not paid to fight that conventional war with Pakistan as Pakistan has sponsored and supported terrorism to India and has adopted a policy of bleeding India with a thousand cuts. However, it is necessary to mention that Pakistan can be brought to its knees before India without engaging in a conventional war with Pakistan. Modi's water bomb and strike is one remarkable and significant way to respond to the rogue state of Pakistan, the epi-centre of terrorism. India has taken an appropriate response after the Pahalgam terror attack, which took the innocent and precious lives of 26 people on April 22nd, 2025. India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty signed by both countries on April 23rd, is an appropriate response to the Pahalgam attack.
The Indus Waters Treaty has survived three full-fledged wars, Kargil incursion and the continued cross-border terrorism backed by Pakistan. The decision to suspend the IWT is unprecedented and the very first of its kind and India has given a clear message that water release will depend on the cessation of support to cross-border terrorism/ Thus without fighting a war with Pakistan ,that country can be made to stop supporting and sponsoring terrorism. India’s suspension of Indus Waters Treaty-IWT with Pakistan ,triggered by a terror attack in Pahalgam Kashmir’s meadows Bairaran ,has significant fallout for both nations and the region. India’s decision allows it to alter its use of the Indus river system, including stopping of water flow data sharing and potentially increasing storage on Western rivers. While India maintains it is not a threat to Pakistan’s water supply, Pakistan views the move as an’act of war’ and has responded with a retaliatory diplomatic measures one of which being not agreeing to much publicised Simla Agreement which says that all issues will be resolved bilaterally between the two countries and there is also no scope for third party intervention and that is the reason and rationale of India asking the world community to remain aloof from the Kashmir issue. Following a terror attack in Pahalgam, India stated the IWT would be held "in abeyance’’ with immediate effect until Pakistan abjures support for cross -border terrorism .India’s decision which is unilateral allows it to potentially:-
a. stop sharing water flow data with Pakistan.
b. Remove design or operational restrictions on dams, potentially permanent allowing for increased storage.
C. Prevent Pakistani officials from visiting hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir.
d:- Engage in reservoir flushing to extend dam life. Pakistan views Indian actions as an ‘act of war.’ and has announced retaliatory diplomatic measures, including suspending the 1972 Simla Agreement.
Pakistan is concerned about the potential impact on its water supplies the IWT has been a crucial part of their water management for decades. There are concerns regarding the legality of India’s unilateral suspension under the international law. The suspension of IWT is seen as a significant escalation in tensions between India and Pakistan. It raises questions about the future of the treaty and its ability to serve as a mechanism for resolving disputes. The move could have border implications for water security in the region ,particularly in Pakistan. There are genuine concerns about the potential for the suspension to destabilize the region and further complicate relations between India and Pakistan. India’s Permanent Representative to UN Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish highlighted four aspects to expose the disinformation by Pakistan which spoke about India’s decision to suspend the IWT. India ripped through Pakistan’s "disinformation" at the UN on the IWT asserting that Islamabad violated its spirit by inflicting three wars and thousands of terror attacks on India that seek to hold hostage lives of civilians religious harmony and economic prosperity.’’
We are constrained to India’s suspension of the IWT with Pakistan,announced in April 2025 has sparked significant concern and potential escalation of tensions between two nations. The suspension of IWT has worsened the already precarious relationship between India and Pakistan and that may cause more problems diplomatically and politically. This act put India in a position to possibly change how flows would be utilized in the Indus river system, stop sharing flows, and removal of restrictions on design or operations for the Western rivers.The suspension primarily due to a terror attack in Pahalgam and India’s perceived inaction, has raised questions about the treaty’s future and its impact on Pakistan’s water resources. The suspension was justified by India as a response to Pakistan’s support of cross-border terrorism, with India indicating that it would be held in abeyance until Islamabad "credibly’’ and irrevocably abjures its support for cross border The decision was communicated through a letter from India’s secretary of water resources to her Pakistani counterpart, stating that the IWT would be kept in abeyance with immediate effect India could stop sharing flood data, which could be detrimental to Pakistan, which relies on the Indus river system for a significant portion of its water supply. The unilateral suspension of the treaty raises questions about its legality under international law, as the IWT is a binding agreement between the two nations.
The future of the treaty remains uncertain, with the potential for a continued conflict and negotiations depending on the resolution of the underlying issues between the two nations. The suspension of the 64 -year-long Indus Waters Treaty raises critical questions for the two hostile neighbours. Does India possess the infrastructural capacity to divert waters and deprive Pakistan of its lifeline ?Is unilateral suspension of the treaty permissible under international law? Debashree Mukerjee, India’s secretary of water resources on Thursday 24 April 2025 wrote to her Pakistani counterpart, SyedAli Murtza, that India was keeping the 1960 IWT in abeyance with immediate effect following the terror attack in Pahalgam, which claimed 26 civilian lives. In response, the Pak PM office condemned the move as an "act of war’’ and announced a series of retaliatory diplomatic measures, including the suspension of the 1972 Simla Agreement.
For over sixty years ,the treaty has stood as a rare testament to the resilience of rules-based diplomacy. Presently India has taken a serious view of terrorism in the wake of the Pahalgam massacre and responded appropriately to Pakistan’s support to cross-border terrorism and unprecedently suspended the IWT affecting the water flow from Indus river system to Pakistan and POK. Modi has in a way struck water bomb on Pakistan and she was made to bend on his knees before India. After four days of military escalation between the two countries, Pakistan bowed before India and asked for a ceasefire. India agreed to the ceasefire but made it clear in loud terms that IWT will continue to remain in abeyance till Pakistan stops abetting and sponsoring terrorism to India.
0 Comments