time for justice, not aggression

India’s recent hybrid war against Pakistan began not with tanks or missiles, but with a chilling threat – shut off the water. In the wake of the deadly attack on Indian tourists in Pahalgam, New Delhi’s first line of action was not investigation or diplomacy — it was retribution through water. India has since held the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance, in a unilateral and illegal move that poses a grave threat to regional stability and an existential danger to Pakistan.

This isn’t merely a technical dispute over hydro projects. This is a hostile act, tantamount to economic terrorism and, by many standards, an act of war. India is weaponising water to pressure Pakistan, jeopardising the lives of millions who depend on the Indus River system for drinking, farming and economic survival.

The IWT, signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan with the World Bank acting as a guarantor, has long been regarded as one of the most successful water-sharing agreements in the world. Its origins lie in the tense post-Partition period, when the 1948 stoppage of canal waters by India exposed the urgent need for a formal and equitable framework for water distribution.

In response to this crisis, and with the mediation of the World Bank, both countries negotiated and agreed upon the IWT — a landmark agreement that provided a durable and structured mechanism for cooperation over the vital Indus River system.

For over six decades, the treaty withstood the test of time — even surviving full-scale wars between the two countries. Pakistan honoured its obligations under the treaty. However, in recent years, New Delhi has increasingly pushed the envelope, building dams and hydroelectric projects on the western rivers in ways that violate both the spirit and letter of the IWT.

The construction of projects like Kishanganga and Ratle has led to legal disputes brought by Pakistan before international arbitration forums. The World Bank had suspended its role as arbitrator in 2016 under Indian pressure but was compelled to resume proceedings following international criticism. In 2023, a Hague-based court ruled in favour of Pakistan, dismissing Indian objections to arbitration. India, in defiance, has still not complied.

The most dangerous escalation came when India threatened to unilaterally exit the treaty or render it inactive by putting it “in abeyance” — a term not recognised in international treaty law. This undermines the credibility of international agreements and creates dangerous precedents for future conflicts.

From a legal standpoint, India’s unilateral action violates several international norms and principles. First, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) clearly states that a party cannot suspend or terminate a treaty unilaterally unless it is explicitly provided for within the treaty, which is not the case here.

Second, India’s refusal to adhere to dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration — despite treaty provisions — violates not only the IWT but also broader principles of international law. By holding the treaty in abeyance, India is attempting to unilaterally rewrite a binding international agreement.

Third, this act of water aggression could be interpreted as a violation of the UN Watercourses Convention and customary international law, which emphasise equitable and reasonable utilisation of transboundary watercourses and the obligation not to cause significant harm.

India’s attempt to weaponise water is tantamount to economic terrorism. It undermines trust, violates international obligations and endangers the lives of over 240 million people in Pakistan.

Furthermore, India’s actions set a dangerous precedent in international relations. If a country can unilaterally suspend a longstanding water-sharing agreement simply due to political hostility, what prevents others from doing the same? This undermines the very foundation of rule-based international order. Water treaties across the world — from the Nile to the Mekong — could become tools of coercion rather than cooperation.

Despite this aggression, Pakistan has not responded with equal hostility. Islamabad continues to advocate for peace and dialogue, but it is clear that this approach must now be accompanied by a robust diplomatic and legal offensive. The World Bank, as the original broker of the treaty, must be called upon to enforce compliance.

The international community, particularly the United Nations and major water rights organisations, must step forward and treat India’s act for what it is – a deliberate violation of a legally binding international treaty with potentially catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

Yet, while holding India accountable, Pakistan must also introspect. The looming water crisis is not solely caused by external aggression. Pakistan loses billions of cubic metres of water annually due to poor irrigation infrastructure, mismanagement and lack of public awareness.

Urban centres waste water, while rural irrigation channels leak and erode. Climate change is reducing snowmelt from the Himalayas, and monsoon patterns are becoming erratic. These are internal challenges that must be addressed immediately.

It is high time Pakistan launched a national water resilience strategy. This must include the construction of new reservoirs and dams to store excess rainwater, the adoption of modern irrigation techniques like drip and sprinkler systems and the repair of outdated canal infrastructure to reduce leakage. Water recycling and greywater usage in urban areas must be prioritised.

Public awareness campaigns on water conservation should be rolled out nationwide. Schools, mosques and media must be mobilised to make water conservation a national habit. Investment in research on climate-resilient crops and water-efficient farming must be accelerated.

Pakistan has acted responsibly, even in the face of repeated provocations. But responsibility should not be mistaken for weakness. India’s illegal move to suspend the treaty is a challenge not just to Pakistan’s sovereignty, but to the world’s shared commitment to peace and cooperation in managing vital natural resources.

Water is not a weapon — it is a lifeline. And if one of the world’s most celebrated water-sharing treaties can be threatened by nationalism and political vengeance, then the global community must act before it becomes a flood too powerful to stop.