Water, law & power: Illegal suspension of IWT

ING the Pahalgam incident Indian unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT-1960) on April 2025, has generated serious legal, political and strategic concerns across South Asia. The move not only undermines a long-standing bilateral agreement but also raises important questions regarding international law, treaty obligations and regional stability. A close examination of the treaty reveals that there is no provision allowing either party to suspend, terminate, or withdraw from it unilaterally. The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank and signed in 1960, has long been regarded as one of the most durable water-sharing agreements in the world. Despite wars, military standoffs and prolonged political hostility between India and Pakistan, the treaty survived every crisis for more than six decades. Its resilience stemmed from the understanding that water should remain insulated from political confrontation and military tensions. Clause 12 of the treaty clearly establishes its permanence. According to this provision, the treaty “shall remain in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two governments.” In practical terms, this means that any amendment, modification, or termination requires mutual agreement between both India and Pakistan. Furthermore, any such change must be formalized through a separate treaty ratified by the two states. There is no clause that authorizes unilateral suspension, partial withdrawal, or independent reinterpretation by either side. Therefore, India’s decision to suspend the treaty on April 23, 2025, lacks legal justification under the treaty itself. The suspension was reportedly linked to allegations of “sustained cross-border terrorism by Pakistan.” However, such political accusations do not constitute lawful grounds for abandoning international treaty obligations. International treaties are designed precisely to survive periods of political disagreement and conflict.