Indus Water Treaty suspension: What could be the impact on both countries?

Following the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government has taken a series of tough measures, one of the most significant being the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan. The decision was reportedly made during a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi. Following the meeting, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri issued a statement announcing the immediate suspension of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan. He further stated that the suspension would remain in effect until Pakistan credibly ceases its support for cross-border terrorism.

What is the Indus Water Treaty?

During British rule, a large canal system was built in the Indus Valley of southern Punjab, turning the region into a major agricultural hub in South Asia. However, with the partition of India in 1947, Punjab was divided—its eastern portion going to India and the western part to Pakistan. This also led to the division of the Indus River system and its extensive canals. Pakistan, which depended heavily on the waters from rivers that originated in India, found itself in a vulnerable position.

To maintain the flow of water, a temporary agreement was signed on December 20, 1947, between the chief engineers of East and West Punjab. According to this agreement, India would continue to supply a certain amount of water to Pakistan until March 31, 1948. However, on April 1, 1948, after the agreement expired, India stopped water supply through two major canals, severely affecting nearly 1.7 million acres of agricultural land in Pakistan's Punjab.

Later, through prolonged negotiations and with international mediation, a more permanent solution was reached. On September 19, 1960, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President General Ayub Khan signed the Indus Water Treaty, with the World Bank acting as a broker. Under this bilateral treaty, Pakistan was granted control over the waters of the Indus and its two tributaries—the Jhelum (Vitasta) and Chenab (Chandrabhaga)—while India retained control over the three eastern rivers—Beas (Vipasha), Sutlej (Shatadru), and Ravi (Iravati).

According to the terms of the treaty, while both countries could use the waters for their needs, neither could obstruct the flow of the rivers. The treaty also led to the establishment of the Permanent Indus Commission, which mandated regular meetings between commissioners from both sides to resolve disputes. If disagreements over a project arose, the parties were to first try resolving it through mutual dialogue. Failing that, it would be escalated to the governments and, if necessary, an impartial expert could be appointed.

Despite these provisions, Pakistan accused India in 2016 of violating the treaty by blocking water through the construction of the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects. Initially, Pakistan demanded the appointment of a neutral expert to investigate. India agreed, citing Article 7 of Annexure F of the treaty. However, Pakistan later unilaterally approached the International Court of Arbitration. Earlier this year, the neutral expert affirmed India’s stance, stating that the projects were for domestic use and not intended to block Pakistan’s share of the water.

What Could Be the Impact?

If India’s suspension of the treaty is prolonged, it could severely disrupt irrigation in Pakistan’s Punjab province, with devastating effects on agriculture. It may also worsen the country's energy crisis, further destabilizing an already fragile economy. Experts estimate that nearly 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture depends on the waters of the Indus and its tributaries. On the other hand, if the treaty were to be permanently terminated, India could benefit significantly by gaining full control over the water resources.

Nonetheless, Tuesday’s retaliatory move in response to the Pahalgam attack could have long-term implications for South Asian geopolitics. The suspension of a treaty that has endured for over six and a half decades may open a new chapter of uncertainty and tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.