A Z Khan
Following partition in 1947, a Standstill Agreement initially maintained the water flow from India to Pakistan. The agreement expired on 1st April 1948 and India unabashedly and unilaterally withheld water from the canals flowing into Pakistan. This early act of aggression by the upper riparian state violating all international tenets set the precedent for future violations. A temporary resolution came through the Inter-Dominion Accord on 4th May 1948 allowing India to resume water supply in return for annual payments from Pakistan. Yet tensions over water resources persisted. Serious negotiations were not resumed until 1951, following the intervention of David E. Lilienthal, the first Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, USA and later the World Bank. After nearly a decade of talks, the treaty was finally signed, by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan on September 19, 1960, under World Bank guarantee.
It was a historic accord between India and Pakistan to regulate the use of the Indus River system. The treaty gave Pakistan rights over the western rivers, Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, and allotted the eastern rivers, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej, to India. Against all odds, the treaty survived more than six decades, outlasting three wars, diplomatic failures, and regional upheavals. In a region of the world where even ceasefires were difficult to maintain, this water-sharing agreement was an unusual anchor of predictability. Even when in 2017, India completed the Kishanganga Dam in Indian-held Kashmir and advanced construction of the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant on the Chenab, both in disregard of Pakistan’s objections, neither party withdrew from the treaty.
However, now in a deeply troubling turn, India has sent a letter to Pakistan on 24th April 2025 indicating its intent to suspend the treaty in response to an alleged attack in Pahalgam on 22nd April 2025. This communication, sent within 48 hours of the incident and without any credible evidence implicating Pakistan, raises profound concerns. The timing, the haste, and the context strongly suggest premeditation. The decision appears less a response to an attack and more a strategic move, possibly using the Pahalgam incident as a false flag to justify an action long in the works.
The stakes for Pakistan are existential. The Indus River system is the country’s main water source, sustaining agriculture, electricity generation, urban supply, and industry. The river has nourished civilizations for millennia. Even today, over three-quarters of Pakistan’s renewable water supply depends on it. Its groundwater aquifers serve major cities. Its flow powers hydroelectric plants. However, the country’s water storage capacity remains dangerously low compared to the river’s annual volume, a situation exacerbated by climate change, melting glaciers, and unpredictable weather conditions.
Given this dependency, the paramount question is how should Pakistan view this unilateral disruption in its water supply, other than as an act of war? No sovereign state can passively accept its people slowly starving. Dying from drought and hunger is no more peaceful than dying in defense. The second question: Why did India act so quickly, and without an investigation? What bureaucracy could approve such a dramatic decision in less than two days? It is not only incredible but also revealing. The evidence suggests that this was a long-planned strategy, just waiting for a trigger, real or self-created.
The 6th May 2025 attack on the Neelum–Jhelum Hydropower Plant represents a serious escalation. Striking a major civilian energy facility is the gravest violation of international law and a breach of the rules that govern armed conduct, even in times of conflict. It endangers thousands of lives and directly targets Pakistan’s critical infrastructure. Such actions cross every legal and moral red line. Pakistan not only has the right to respond under international law, but it must respond in kind, through precise, proportionate measures that restore deterrence and demonstrate that its lifelines are not open to attack.
Pakistan must respond with resolve, urgency and national Unity. Firstly, immediate resources should be sought through international legal and diplomatic forums. The United Nations, the World Bank, the International Court of Justice, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration must be engaged without delay. India’s move violates the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Secondly, a high-level ministerial delegation must be dispatched to strategic capitals to mobilize international pressure. Quite diplomacy is not enough. The world must be sensitized about the gravity of the situation. Thirdly, a sustained media campaign is essential to expose the illegality of India’s actions and the threat it poses to regional stability. And most importantly if all else fails, Pakistan must be ready to defend its lifeline by all means necessary. Survival cannot be postponed. It must be secured, no matter what the cost.
India should remember that one reckless act can trigger irreversible consequences. The planet cannot afford two nuclear-armed nations gambling with water and war. If the global community continues to look the other way, it cannot escape responsibility for the consequences. What is taking shape is far more than a dispute between two countries; it is a direct threat to peace, sovereignty, and human life. India needs to remember that Dialogue is the only way forward, whether to resolve differences between two people or two Nations.
The issue is not just about rivers. It is about dignity, justice, and survival. The time to act is not tomorrow. It is now.
The writer is a senior public policy expert specializing in conflict resolution and regional affairs. He can be reached at amzkhan.lhr@gmail.com
Courtesy
