Punishing Pakistan: India’s Calculated Indus Waters Treaty Abeyance.

India Halts Indus Water Treaty: Strategic Move to Pressure Pakistan Explained

India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance as a punitive measure against Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism is a beautifully calibrated strategic move. While the IWT signed in 1960 has traditionally represented an abiding cooperation between two frequently-arguing neighbors, its suspension signals an angry India increasingly impatient and willing to exploit every diplomatic and strategic lever at its disposal.

The treaty gives Pakistan the waters of Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers, while India has sole rights over the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. Brokered by the World Bank, the treaty has remained intact despite wars and episodes of paramilitary tensions, making the current status of the treaty an important change in status. India envisages placing the treaty “in abeyance” because it believes Pakistan has, in effect, violated the treaty’s preamble, which contains a “spirit of goodwill and friendship.” India argues that unrelenting cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan is in direct contravention of this spirit and utterly inhibits India’s enjoyment of its own allocated water resources.

The distinction between the abrogation and the suspension makes it an interesting one.
International law, and in particular the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), does define terms and conditions by which treaties can be suspended or terminated in light of material breaches or fundamental changes in circumstances, respectively; India’s use of the term “abeyance” signals a temporary pause (not a complete termination), which permits further negotiations. Such an approach allows India to impose pressure with the use of the abeyance status without completely ending a longstanding agreement, which could carry threats of broader implications for the international community and precedent for other transboundary water disputes.

India also notes, as well, significant implementing changes on the ground, including climate change, glacial melt, and modern day engineering developments, requiring a treaty renegotiation.

This sets another legitimate basis to reconsider the 65-year-old treaty, placing a halt that is not just punitive but also based on the changing environmental and technological contexts and how they all interact. Pakistan’s alleged attempts to delay or deny India’s request for government-to-government discussions about these impacts further bolster India’s case.

The strategic calibration is what does this do to Pakistan? Pakistan’s economy depends on the western rivers for a major portion of its agriculture. Agriculture is a key sector of its economy. Indicating that, in the future, it may exercise more unilateral control over the waters adds a very powerful dimension. Although India may not presently have the necessary infrastructure to “weaponize” water by intentionally creating drought or flooding across the country – even just the threat itself is a strong deterrent and a clear signal that business as usual cannot happen anymore.

Read more: Time Loops and Tender Truths: Bhool Chuk Maaf Movie Review

Voices skeptical of the Indian government’s approach might discuss legalities or try to fear-monger about escalation. However, India’s approach, which it has constructed as a consequence of Pakistan’s behaviour, is aimed at expanding the Pakistan’s cost of terrorism, and beyond. It’s a calculated risk intended to mitigate Pakistan’s use of cross-border terrorism by forcing Pakistan to address the source of its friction with India, not merely manage the symptoms.

We’re now on WhatsApp. Click to join. 

Like this post?
Register at One World News to never miss out on videos, celeb interviews, and best reads.