Chandigarh, April 25 (ANI): India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty following the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack has reignited debate over water security, sovereignty, and long-term strategic planning.
In an analysis published in Saviours Magazine, former bureaucrat KBS Sindhu described the 1960 treaty as an act of “remarkable—and ultimately imprudent—generosity,” arguing that India conceded a disproportionate share of river waters to Pakistan based on assumptions that no longer hold.
The treaty, brokered by the World Bank and signed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s President Ayub Khan, allocated the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—to India, while granting Pakistan control over the larger western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.
Sindhu noted that this arrangement effectively gave Pakistan nearly 80 percent of the basin’s total water flow, despite India being the upper riparian state. He argued that India had “willingly constrained itself,” while Pakistan benefitted downstream.
The renewed debate follows India placing the treaty “in abeyance” after the April 22, 2025 terror attack in Pahalgam that killed 26 civilians. Sindhu contended that the move is both legally defensible and strategically overdue, citing the principle of “fundamental change of circumstances” under international law.
“India is under no enforceable compulsion… to maintain a water compact that subsidises the agricultural economy of a state that exports terror,” he wrote.
Beyond legal arguments, the analysis highlighted India’s underutilization of its own water entitlements. Key infrastructure projects such as the Ranjit Sagar Dam and Shahpur Kandi Dam have faced prolonged delays, allowing significant volumes of water to flow into Pakistan unused.
Sindhu estimated that each year of delay has resulted in approximately 0.6 million acre-feet of India’s Ravi waters flowing across the border, even as groundwater levels in Punjab continue to decline.
On the western rivers, where limited storage and hydropower development are permitted, India has also fallen short. Although allowed to build up to 3.6 million acre-feet of storage, only a portion has been realized. Similarly, hydropower potential exceeding 18 gigawatts remains largely untapped.
The article also alleged that Pakistan has used the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanisms to delay Indian infrastructure projects through repeated objections and arbitration proceedings.
Placing the issue in a global context, Sindhu argued that nations increasingly prioritize strategic interests over treaty obligations when faced with pressing challenges, suggesting India’s approach aligns with evolving international behavior.
A major concern raised in the analysis is water security in Punjab, where groundwater extraction significantly exceeds recharge. Sindhu warned that declining water tables could pose risks not only to agriculture but also to regional stability.
“A depleted Punjab… is an invitation to instability,” he wrote, linking water scarcity to economic distress and potential social unrest in a sensitive border state.
To address these challenges, the analysis proposed large-scale infrastructure initiatives, including diversion projects from western rivers to northern India. Among them is the proposed Chenab–Ravi diversion via the Marhu Tunnel, along with expedited construction of storage dams such as Bursar and Sawalkot.
Sindhu stressed that such projects should be treated as national security priorities, backed by central funding and fast-tracked approvals.
“Threatening what one cannot yet deliver is a confession of weakness,” he noted, emphasizing the need for tangible infrastructure over political signaling.
The article further suggested that water could become a strategic bargaining tool in India-Pakistan relations, particularly as Pakistan faces increasing water stress due to population growth and climate pressures.
Sindhu also called for institutional reforms, including the creation of a National Indus Basin Authority to streamline planning and execution, supported by legislative measures to reduce bureaucratic delays.
He concluded that suspending the treaty should not be viewed as an end, but as the beginning of a broader strategic shift.
“What comes next is not about revenge or headlines… it is about transforming a political signal into a hydrological fact, and a hydrological fact into a strategic reality,” he wrote.
As India reassesses its approach to water-sharing with Pakistan, the debate underscores the complex intersection of security, sustainability, and sovereignty shaping the future of the Indus basin. (ANI)
About The Author
