India–Pakistan Ties Through the Prism of the Indus Treaty

India suspended the 65-year-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) after the April Pahalgam terror attack, calling for a review and renegotiation.
Water sharing is emerging as a new flashpoint, alongside terrorism and Kashmir.

Allocation:
- Pakistan received 80% of Indus waters (western rivers: Indus, Jhelum, Chenab).
- India got 20% (eastern rivers: Ravi, Beas, Sutlej).
India’s View:
- Nehru saw it as a “purchased peace” and gesture of goodwill.
- Critics (e.g., EAM Jaishankar) see it as appeasement.
Pakistan’s View:
- Never celebrated 80:20 division — doing so would weaken its victimhood narrative.
- Uses Treaty clauses to challenge India’s J&K projects.
Result: Both sides remain dissatisfied, though for opposite reasons.

Fears India may disrupt flows despite Treaty guarantees.
Water insecurity tied to Kashmir dispute.
General Ayub Khan (1960s) linked Kashmir’s annexation to Pakistan’s water security.
Repeated use of dispute mechanisms to stall Indian hydropower projects in J&K (e.g., Kishanganga, Baglihar).

Survived 4 wars, terrorism, and decades of hostility.
India, as upper riparian, bore the main responsibility:
- Ensuring minimum flows.
- Data sharing on river flows.
If Pakistan were upper riparian, many argue the Treaty may not have lasted.
Pakistan exploited Treaty’s technical mechanisms to delay Indian projects, despite not being directly affected upstream.

Pakistan’s Position:
- Reluctant to renegotiate — enjoys favourable terms.
- Push for involving China (8% basin) and Afghanistan (6% basin).
India’s Position:
- Insists on bilateral framework (no World Bank, no third parties).
- Focus now on maximising use of western rivers within Treaty limits (storage, hydro projects in J&K).
- Suspension of Permanent Indus Commission meetings reduces structured dialogue.
Strategic Shift: India signals willingness to use upper riparian leverage to pressure Pakistan on terrorism and water disputes

Important Links