India’s Indus Treaty Suspension and Pakistan’s Existential Threat

The growing tensions between India and Pakistan have entered a dangerous new phase with allegations of water being deliberately weaponised as a tool of coercion. Pakistan has long maintained that India manipulates the flow of rivers that are critical for Pakistan’s agriculture and economy, but the situation has worsened dramatically after India suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) following the Pahalgam incident in Kashmir in April 2025. India’s decision to unilaterally halt cooperation under the treaty, citing Pakistan’s alleged involvement in the attack, has raised alarm across the region and beyond. For Pakistan, this step represents a direct existential threat to its water security and a violation of international law, undermining one of the most enduring water-sharing agreements in the world.

The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 with the facilitation of the World Bank, has been regarded as a rare example of cooperation between the two adversaries, even surviving periods of open conflict. Under the treaty, waters of the three western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab – were allocated to Pakistan, while India was given rights over the three eastern rivers – Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas. Article XII (3) of the treaty explicitly requires mutual consent for any modification or suspension. By withdrawing unilaterally, India has not only breached the letter of the agreement but also jeopardized the mechanisms for communication and dispute resolution that the treaty provided. Without these channels, the risk of escalation grows substantially, as the parties lose structured means to address disagreements.

Pakistan has warned that India’s actions amount to the weaponisation of water, a practice condemned under international norms. Water, being a shared natural resource, is not merely a tool of power but a necessity for human survival. Using it as leverage in political disputes sets a dangerous precedent, particularly in a region where both countries are nuclear-armed. The impact on Pakistan is immense. Agriculture, which depends heavily on river flows from India, constitutes a major portion of Pakistan’s economy and provides livelihoods for millions. Any disruption in water supply directly threatens food security, energy generation, and socio-economic stability. For a nation already facing economic challenges, these measures risk pushing it into deeper crisis.

This sense of insecurity has been compounded by the recent devastating floods across Pakistan, which the government has attributed to deliberate releases of water by India without timely warnings. Authorities point to sudden surges in the Ravi, Sutlej, and Chenab rivers, all of which originate in Indian territory and flow into Pakistan. According to Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal, these unannounced discharges have caused widespread destruction in Punjab, claiming hundreds of lives, displacing thousands, and wiping out livestock and infrastructure. Government data estimates that since late June, at least 884 people have died nationwide, more than 220 of them in Punjab alone. While natural factors and climate change also contribute to flooding, Pakistan views India’s actions as a clear manifestation of water being deployed as a weapon of war.

India, however, denies these allegations, framing its decision as a sovereign response to Pakistan’s alleged involvement in terrorism. Yet its refusal to allow an independent investigation into the Pahalgam attack has raised questions about whether the incident has been used as a pretext to assert greater control over shared rivers. For Pakistan, the sequence of events substantiates suspicions of a false flag operation designed to justify the suspension of the treaty. The optics of timing, coupled with India’s increasingly belligerent rhetoric, reinforce fears that water is being transformed into a political-military tool rather than a shared resource.

This emerging dynamic is not just a bilateral issue. The collapse of the IWT framework carries significant international implications. The treaty had long been celebrated as one of the most successful water-sharing agreements in the world, often cited as a model for other transboundary river arrangements. Its breakdown highlights how fragile such agreements can be in the face of political hostility and underscores the urgent need for global mechanisms to protect shared resources from becoming instruments of conflict.

The international community must therefore recognize the seriousness of the situation. If left unchecked, India’s actions set a precedent that powerful states can manipulate water flows for political leverage, ignoring the human and environmental costs. For Pakistan, the stakes are existential. Its water, food, and energy security depend on uninterrupted river flows. Its farmers and communities cannot afford to be hostages to political disputes. With each passing day of suspended cooperation, trust erodes further, and the likelihood of confrontation increases.

Diplomatic intervention is urgently needed to prevent the water crisis from escalating into open conflict. Neutral stakeholders, including the United Nations, the World Bank, and influential states, should step in to restore dialogue and ensure compliance with international law. While Pakistan must continue to press its case on global platforms, India too has a responsibility to demonstrate that it remains committed to rules-based cooperation rather than unilateral coercion. In the absence of such efforts, the subcontinent risks sliding into yet another cycle of hostility, this time fueled not just by borders or politics, but by control over the most fundamental resource for human survival: water.