By New Delhi – The long-standing peace agreement that governs the sharing of water between India and Pakistan, known as the Indus Waters Treaty, has endured six decades of political tension, war, and terrorism. Signed in 1960, it has often been hailed as a rare beacon of cooperation between two historic rivals. However, in the wake of a brutal terrorist attack on civilians in Kashmir this week, the Indian government has taken an unprecedented step — it has effectively suspended the treaty.
This decision marks a significant and troubling shift in India’s posture. Unlike previous acts of cross-border aggression or military conflict — including full-scale wars in 1965, 1971, and 1999 — this latest terrorist incident has triggered a response that even those earlier confrontations did not. That the water-sharing pact could not survive this tragedy signals the deep level of shock and anger felt by Indian authorities.
A Target Unlike Before
The difference this time lies in the target: not soldiers, not security personnel — but everyday citizens. In the past, attacks like the 2016 grenade assault on an army base in Uri, or the 2019 Pulwama bombing targeting paramilitary forces, triggered swift but measured responses. However, the Pahalgam assault deliberately targeted innocent tourists, including families and honeymooners. Reports indicate that attackers singled out non-Muslim men, invoking memories of India’s darkest episodes of communal violence.
This has led India to escalate its diplomatic and strategic response — not just in word, but in action. The Indian government, increasingly frustrated with what it sees as Pakistan’s persistent tolerance or support for Islamist militancy, appears to be using the Indus Waters Treaty as a pressure point to signal its intolerance for continued provocation.
US Absence Leaves a Vacuum
Another aspect that makes this confrontation especially dangerous is the changing global landscape. In the past, international actors — particularly the United States — often played a quiet but crucial role in easing tensions. During previous standoffs, including the 1999 Kargil conflict, Washington stepped in to mediate or encourage de-escalation.
Today, that global stabilizing force is missing. The U.S., under Donald Trump’s foreign policy and its continued retreat from global leadership, has shown little appetite for intervening in South Asian disputes. The absence of a reliable international mediator makes the current crisis more unpredictable and potentially volatile.
Clash of Wills: Modi vs Munir
The outcome now hinges largely on two men: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Army Chief General Asim Munir. Modi is known for his firm stance on national security, and his government has previously authorized cross-border strikes in retaliation for attacks. Whether he chooses to show restraint this time is uncertain.
On the other side, General Munir holds the real reins of power in Pakistan. He faces domestic pressures of his own, balancing the army’s dominance in national politics with internal rivalries and public sentiment. A military de-escalation could be seen as weakness and risks undermining the army’s influence — especially while former Prime Minister Imran Khan remains jailed, a potential rallying figure for opposition.
Unfortunately, rather than choosing diplomacy, Pakistan’s response has added fuel to the fire. Its National Security Council declared that any move by India to alter water flows would be seen as “an act of war” and responded to “with full force.” This aggressive language has alarmed observers, as it risks turning a crisis into a full-blown confrontation. By contrast, Pakistan’s leadership had shown more restraint in 2019 — and arguably gained diplomatic sympathy as a result.
The Water Weapon
Pakistan is especially vulnerable on the issue of water. Its agricultural sector, which supports a large portion of the population, relies heavily on the Indus River system. Water scarcity is already a recurring issue, and any disruption could worsen food insecurity. The floods of 2022, which caused over $30 billion in damages, highlighted the country’s vulnerability to environmental and water-related crises.
India’s suspension of the treaty may not have immediate effects — experts point out that most of India’s existing infrastructure on these rivers is not built to divert or withhold water, but to regulate flow. Significant disruptions would require the construction of major new dams or reservoirs — a costly and time-consuming endeavor. India has not constructed such large-scale water infrastructure in recent decades.
The Dilemma for India
Strategically, New Delhi may be hoping to introduce uncertainty into Islamabad’s planning and raise the costs of its current posture. However, the broader question remains: is punishing ordinary Pakistani farmers through water restrictions the kind of response Prime Minister Modi wants to be known for? While India may see this move as leverage, using it could also carry diplomatic consequences and humanitarian fallout.
In sum, the current standoff marks a dangerous departure from past patterns. With the water treaty now on hold, inflammatory rhetoric on both sides, and a lack of international mediation, the stakes have never been higher. This moment calls for sober leadership — but both sides appear trapped by the political risks of backing down.
