Abdullah Umar
Fresh global evidence from the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) strengthens the case for resolving Indus basin issues strictly under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), calling for a reversion to the treaty’s mechanisms and a refrain from unilateral actions that undermine international water agreements. IEP’s 2025 Ecological Threat Report describes the IWT as a “core conflict-resolution tool” for six decades and warns that India’s 2025 suspension has ushered in “heightened tension” between the neighbours.
As an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research body, the IEP’s judgment is that shared rivers “breed greater cooperation than conflict,” with treaties and agreements far more common than water wars – a finding that vindicates a treaty-first approach centred on preserving and using the IWT’s forums. The report explicitly documents the treaty’s durability through three wars and diplomatic breakdowns, underscoring its status as a rare high point in an otherwise fraught relationship.
The report also recounts how the IWT created a graded dispute-resolution ladder – from the Permanent Indus Commission to Neutral Experts and Arbitration, with the World Bank facilitating appointments – designed to “avoid unilateral action.” That framework should be reactivated in full. It also notes that after India announced its suspension in April 2025, “reservoir flushing” on the Chenab was carried out without notifying Pakistan, an operation the treaty forbids or tightly regulates due to sudden downstream flow changes – illustrating why unilateralism is destabilising.
While acknowledging that some past rulings (Baglihar; Kishanganga) allowed Indian designs with conditions, the IEP concludes that the IWT system kept disputes inside legal and technical channels and prevented armed conflict – precisely the outcome a treaty-first approach seeks to preserve. The report’s global analysis further finds that when states enter formal negotiations or mediation over rivers, outcomes tend toward peaceful settlement and improved cooperation – an empirical basis for rolling back the suspension and returning to the treaty’s procedures.
The IEP also stresses Pakistan’s existential dependence on Indus flows (roughly four-fifths of irrigated agriculture) and clarifies that India’s western-river projects are predominantly run-of-river with minimal storage, limiting any ability to “turn off” the rivers – yet making timed disruptions risky because Pakistan’s storage covers only about 30 days of flow. These facts heighten the responsibility to act within the IWT and improve transparency.
Recognising the IEP as a credible, independent voice, the analysis implies three immediate steps required by India: (i) formally withdraw the “suspension” and restore regular PIC engagement; (ii) submit technical questions to Neutral Expert/Arbitration as the treaty prescribes; and (iii) cease unilateral operational changes like reservoir flushing and provide timely data-sharing as per IWT provisions. This aligns with the report’s core findings: treaties work, institutions reduce escalation and cooperation remains the global norm – even in stressed basins like the Indus.
IEP’s analysis is unambiguous: the world’s answer to water stress is more rules and more cooperation, not suspension. The treaty’s original allocation – western rivers for Pakistan with strict limits on India’s use – remains the lawful baseline for responsible basin management. Outstanding issues should be engaged through IWT mechanisms and resolved fairly, peacefully and consistent with international law. It is for India to act responsibly and honour the “treaty-first approach” on the Indus.
The writer is a freelance columnist.
