Latest news with #RiversandPeople
India Today
26-04-2025
- Politics
- India Today
India to explore maximum use of water under now-suspended Indus Treaty
The Centre is planning to undertake a study to look into ways to maximise the use of the quantum of water from the three rivers that Pakistan had earlier used under the Indus Water Treaty, now that the agreement has been suspended, officials proposal was made at a high-level meeting on Friday chaired by Home Minister Amit Shah that discussed the future course of action on the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, which has been kept in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 people were the World Bank-brokered treaty, India was granted exclusive rights to the water of the eastern rivers -- the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi -- amounting to an average annual flow of about 33 million acre-feet (MAF). The water of the western rivers -- the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab -- with an average annual flow of around 135 MAF, were largely allocated to Pakistan. With the treaty now put in abeyance, the government is looking at ways to utilise the water of the Indus, Jhelum and Friday's high-level meeting, Jal Shakti Minister C R Paatil asserted that the government is working on a strategy to ensure that not a single drop of water flows into said Prime Minister Narendra Modi has issued a slew of directives, and the meeting was held to follow up on them. Shah made several suggestions at the meeting for their effective will ensure that not a single drop of water flows into Pakistan from India," the Jal Shakti Minister had said after the said the government is working on a long-term plan to ensure the effective implementation of its to an official, the ministry has been asked to conduct a study to look at ways to utilise the water from the three western have spoken about the lack of infrastructure that may limit India's capability of completely utilising the water it gets from the decision to suspend the treaty."The real issue is with the western rivers, where infrastructure limitations prevent us from immediately stopping water flows," Himanshu Thakkar of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) said."We have several projects underway in the Chenab basin that will take five to seven years to complete. Until then, water will continue to flow to Pakistan by gravity. Once these are operational, India will have control mechanisms that currently do not exist," Thakkar had told Dharmadhikary, an environmental activist and the founder of Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, has also cautioned against assuming that India could rapidly divert water flows. "At present, we lack the major infrastructure needed to stop water from flowing into Pakistan," he response to India's decision on the water-sharing agreement, Pakistan's Senate, in a resolution, said the move amounted to "an act of war".
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Centre plans study to maximise use of Indus waters amid treaty suspension
The Centre is planning a undertake a study to look into ways to maximise the use of the quantum of water from the three rivers that Pakistan had earlier used under the Indus Water Treaty, now that the agreement has been, officials said. The proposal was made at a high-level meeting on Friday chaired by Home Minister Amit Shah that discussed the future course of action on the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, which has been kept in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 people were killed. Under the World Bank-brokered treaty, India was granted exclusive rights to the water of the eastern rivers -- the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi -- amounting to an average annual flow of about 33 million acre-feet (MAF). The water of the western rivers -- the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab -- with an average annual flow of around 135 MAF, were largely allocated to Pakistan. With the treaty now put in abeyance, the government is looking at ways to utilise the water of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. After Friday's high-level meeting, Jal Shakti Minister C R Paatil asserted that the government is working on a strategy to ensure that not a single drop of water flows into Pakistan. He said Prime Minister Narendra Modi has issued a slew of directives, and the meeting was held to follow up on them. Shah made several suggestions at the meeting for their effective implementation. "We will ensure that not a single drop of water flows into Pakistan from India," the Jal Shakti Minister had said after the meeting. Sources said the government is working on a long-term plan to ensure the effective implementation of its decisions. According to an official, the ministry has been asked to conduct a study to look at ways to utilise the water from the three western rivers. Experts have spoken about the lack of infrastructure that may limit India's capability of completely utilising the water it gets from the decision to suspend the treaty. "The real issue is with the western rivers where infrastructure limitations prevent us from immediately stopping water flows," Himanshu Thakkar of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) said. "We have several projects underway in the Chenab basin that will take five to seven years to complete. Until then, water will continue to flow to Pakistan by gravity. Once these are operational, India will have control mechanisms that currently do not exist," Thakkar had told PTI. Shripad Dharmadhikary, an environmental activist and the founder of Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, has also cautioned against assuming that India could rapidly divert water flows. "At present, we lack the major infrastructure needed to stop water from flowing into Pakistan," he said. In response to India's decision on the water sharing agreement, Pakistan's Senate, in a resolution, has said the move amounted to "an act of war".
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The most dangerous river in the world: why the Indus could spark WWIII
It gave birth to one of Earth's earliest and most mysterious civilisations, halted Alexander the Great, and today sustains some of the planet's most populous cities. Now the Indus river – the mighty water way that carves its way through what is now Pakistan – could also give us World War III. On Thursday, India's government announced it was temporarily suspending the treaty that regulates use of the river's waters in response to a terrorist attack that killed 26 tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir, the worst assault of its kind in the disputed region for many years. Pakistan warned that could be an act of war. As tensions escalate, the pair have issued tit-for-tat suspensions of visas, with Pakistan halting all trade with India (including via third countries) and expelling a raft of Indian military attaches from the country. India, whose police have named three of four suspected gunmen behind the attack (two of whom are Pakistani citizens), has meanwhile shut the Attari-Wagah border between the two countries and downgraded diplomatic ties. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has, ominously, also vowed to pursue those responsible for the attack in Kashmir 'to the ends of the Earth'. 'I say to the whole world: India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backer,' Modi said earlier this week. As the two nuclear-powered neighbours appear to lurch closer to an all-out conflict than they have in years, the Indus river is more than just a symbol. 'As far as India is concerned, since it is an upstream country, the importance of the treaty is not so great. These agreements are generally more important for downstream countries, like Pakistan. And for Pakistan, it's a life and death issue,' says Himanshu Thakkar, director of the Delhi-based South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People. 'For Pakistan it is existential. It is Pakistan's lifeline actually, its agricultural and food lifeline. That's why it is very touchy, and that's why the provisions in the treaty are very stringent. There should be no uncertainty, no loss of predictability. I mean, it is existential dependence. That's why they have called it an act of war,' he adds. India and Pakistan have battled over water ever since independence in 1947. The new state of Pakistan was centred on the Indus and would depend on it for water outside the summer monsoon. But the border created by partition cut right across the waterway and five of its main tributaries. It also split the elaborate canal system the British Raj built to irrigate previously barren portions of western Punjab. It is one reason the two countries immediately went to war over Kashmir, the mountainous territory through which the Indus flows on its way from China, and where one of its main tributaries rises. It also explains why the conflict has continued to this day, says Dr Chietigj Bajpaee, a senior research fellow for South Asia in the Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House. Securing the headwaters of the Indus became critical. In 1960, after years of tense negotiations brokered by the World Bank, the The Indus Waters Treaty came into force. The deal handed India full rights to the use of the three western tributaries, but guaranteed Pakistan flow from the Indus itself and its two eastern tributaries – the Jhelum and Chenab – which account for most of its water. Through a number of wars, one nuclear arms race, and numerous skirmishes, Indian and Pakistani delegations continued to meet every year to review water levels, exchange data on rainfall and river flow, and consult on dispute resolution. In the small world of water diplomacy, the Indus treaty 'has long been held up as a pillar of stability,' says David Michel, a senior fellow at the centre for strategic and international studies who in 2012 drafted a review of potential water conflicts for the US intelligence community. 'It is more of a divorce settlement than a cooperation agreement, literally dividing the basin in half,' he notes, 'and it is not not flexible or suited to new challenges of climate change – it doesn't address ground water, or water quality, or glacial melt or things like that – but it survived two wars and numerous smaller conflicts.' India has been allowed to build some dams and take some water from the upstream sections, but only under strict conditions and in coordination with Pakistan. It froze one project in 1987 because of Pakistani objections. But Modi's government has had the deal in his sights for some time. After a terrorist attack against Indian soldiers in Kashmir in 2016, Modi declared that 'blood and water can't flow together at the same time'. He reiterated the threat after another attack in 2019. In 2023, New Delhi said it would like to renegotiate the treaty. Then, in August last year, India wrote to Pakistan saying it would suspend the annual meetings of the Indus water commission. It is testament to the success of the treaty that even this step is incremental: having frozen the treaty, there is no button for prime minister Modi to press that actually would reduce the flow of water to Pakistan. No such infrastructure exists. Building it now could take a decade of construction work. But there are other ruses. Ignoring the treaty's rules about 'silt flushing' – the practice of clearing out existing Indian dams by opening the sluices – could be used to wreak havoc downstream in the short term, says Tahkkar. 'I hope India doesn't intend to really interfere in a big way with the flow of water going into Pakistan,' he says. 'But we don't know. There has been a build up to this from 2016, which has led to this situation.' While India and Pakistan have always been at loggerheads, Prime Minister Modi's decision to suspend the treaty marks an unprecedented escalation. Over the decades, the water treaty became one part of a complex network of written and unwritten understandings that regulated relations. The 1972 Simla agreement formally froze the line of contact in Kashmir where the two sides had stopped fighting following the Indo-Pakistan War, which raged a year earlier and resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. The two armies, while regularly shelling one another, established hotlines. Generals would invite one another across the frontline to go duck shooting. When the Telegraph visited the contact line in 2019, a Pakistani officer explained that we were in view of Indian snipers who had only recently opened fire but predicted with confidence there would be no fighting that day. 'If you look over there, you will see they have visitors too today.' Sure enough, on the other side of no-man's land, a small group of what were presumably Indian journalists could be seen peering curiously in our direction. This level of coordination should not be romanticised. The grim logic of nuclear deterrence – India got the bomb in 1974, Pakistan in 1998 – has been at least as important as the water treaty in dampening the desire for full scale confrontation. But on the whole, the conflict has been relatively well regulated. The fear now is that all those safeguards could come tumbling down. 'They've been at it for such a long time, and there are certain rules of engagement. Now those rules of engagement are being questioned,' says Bajpaee. 'Back in 1999 both countries went to war in Kashmir, but the Indian military response was so restrained they refused to send fighter aircraft across the border into Pakistan-administered Kashmir. That has all changed under the Modi government. In 2016, they carried out strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. And in 2019 they conducted air strikes in Pakistan proper.' Still, he says, there are some limits notionally in place. Water is one. 'These are lines that, essentially, can't be crossed.' When it comes to using water as a weapon of war, says Michel, 'the Indus has long been on the radar.' But it is far from alone. 'The usage of water management as a tool of geopolitical leverage has been an emerging challenge.' The most infamous water conflict is in the Jordan river valley, where so much water has been syphoned off that the river is little more than a trickle by the time it reaches the Dead Sea. The Nile is another example of upstream dependency, with Sudan and especially Egypt almost entirely dependent on rains that fall on the Ethiopian highlands. In the Tigris and Euphrates system, Syria and Iraq have both accused Turkey of using its control of the headwaters to exert political pressure. At one point Turkey and Syria signed an explicit conflict-related water deal - Turkey promised to release more water to Syria if former leader Bashar al-Assad ceased backing the PKK, a Kurdish insurgent group. In the Mekong river system, meanwhile, China has been building hydroelectric infrastructure both on its own portion and in that of neighbours like Laos and Myanmar – to the alarm of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand. India, at large, is itself a downstream nation. The Brahmaputra river, in the country's east, rises in China and is vulnerable to an enormous hydroelectric project planned by Beijing. The parallel has not been lost on some Indian newspaper commentators, who have cautioned against setting a precedent by holding Pakistan's rivers hostage. It might be best not to give China, a Pakistani ally, any ideas. 'Pakistan is in a spot – its dams only hold about 30 days flow of the Indus. In the dry season Pakistan is heavily dependent on having managed its water resources. That is the chokehold on Pakistan's economy,' says Michel. 'So it is a point of leverage. And that is reflected around the world.' 'It is a combustible mixture of hydrology – where the water comes from – with politics and trust. Look at the Rhine or the Rhone. Dynamics differ because of the trust between those countries. Until recently people would have said the same about relations between the US and Canada over the Columbia river – it's not the Indus or the Mekong or the Nile. But last month, Donald Trump suspended negotiations over the 61-year-old pact which governs the river – including its transnational flood control, power generation and water supply. 'The concern is the Trump administration could use this pause in the context of larger tensions between the US and Canada as a source of leverage,' says Michel. The lesson is simple. Where there is strife, water conflict soon follows. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The most dangerous river in the world: why the Indus could spark WWIII
It gave birth to one of Earth's earliest and most mysterious civilisations, halted Alexander the Great, and today sustains some of the planet's most populous cities. Now the Indus river – the mighty water way that carves its way through what is now Pakistan – could also give us World War III. On Thursday, India's government announced it was temporarily suspending the treaty that regulates use of the river's waters in response to a terrorist attack that killed 26 tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir, the worst assault of its kind in the disputed region for many years. Pakistan warned that could be an act of war. As tensions escalate, the pair have issued tit-for-tat suspensions of visas, with Pakistan halting all trade with India (including via third countries) and expelling a raft of Indian military attaches from the country. India, whose police have named three of four suspected gunmen behind the attack (two of whom are Pakistani citizens), has meanwhile shut the Attari-Wagah border between the two countries and downgraded diplomatic ties. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has, ominously, also vowed to pursue those responsible for the attack in Kashmir 'to the ends of the Earth'. 'I say to the whole world: India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backer,' Modi said earlier this week. 'For Pakistan it is existential' As the two nuclear-powered neighbours appear to lurch closer to an all-out conflict than they have in years, the Indus river is more than just a symbol. 'As far as India is concerned, since it is an upstream country, the importance of the treaty is not so great. These agreements are generally more important for downstream countries, like Pakistan. And for Pakistan, it's a life and death issue,' says Himanshu Thakkar, director of the Delhi-based South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People. 'For Pakistan it is existential. It is Pakistan's lifeline actually, its agricultural and food lifeline. That's why it is very touchy, and that's why the provisions in the treaty are very stringent. There should be no uncertainty, no loss of predictability. I mean, it is existential dependence. That's why they have called it an act of war,' he adds. India and Pakistan have battled over water ever since independence in 1947. The new state of Pakistan was centred on the Indus and would depend on it for water outside the summer monsoon. But the border created by partition cut right across the waterway and five of its main tributaries. It also split the elaborate canal system the British Raj built to irrigate previously barren portions of western Punjab. It is one reason the two countries immediately went to war over Kashmir, the mountainous territory through which the Indus flows on its way from China, and where one of its main tributaries rises. It also explains why the conflict has continued to this day, says Dr Chietigj Bajpaee, a senior research fellow for South Asia in the Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House. Securing the headwaters of the Indus became critical. In 1960, after years of tense negotiations brokered by the World Bank, the The Indus Waters Treaty came into force. The deal handed India full rights to the use of the three western tributaries, but guaranteed Pakistan flow from the Indus itself and its two eastern tributaries – the Jhelum and Chenab – which account for most of its water. Through a number of wars, one nuclear arms race, and numerous skirmishes, Indian and Pakistani delegations continued to meet every year to review water levels, exchange data on rainfall and river flow, and consult on dispute resolution. In the small world of water diplomacy, the Indus treaty 'has long been held up as a pillar of stability,' says David Michel, a senior fellow at the centre for strategic and international studies who in 2012 drafted a review of potential water conflicts for the US intelligence community. 'It is more of a divorce settlement than a cooperation agreement, literally dividing the basin in half,' he notes, 'and it is not not flexible or suited to new challenges of climate change – it doesn't address ground water, or water quality, or glacial melt or things like that – but it survived two wars and numerous smaller conflicts.' Taking it away India has been allowed to build some dams and take some water from the upstream sections, but only under strict conditions and in coordination with Pakistan. It froze one project in 1987 because of Pakistani objections. But Modi's government has had the deal in his sights for some time. After a terrorist attack against Indian soldiers in Kashmir in 2016, Modi declared that 'blood and water can't flow together at the same time'. He reiterated the threat after another attack in 2019. In 2023, New Delhi said it would like to renegotiate the treaty. Then, in August last year, India wrote to Pakistan saying it would suspend the annual meetings of the Indus water commission. It is testament to the success of the treaty that even this step is incremental: having frozen the treaty, there is no button for prime minister Modi to press that actually would reduce the flow of water to Pakistan. No such infrastructure exists. Building it now could take a decade of construction work. But there are other ruses. Ignoring the treaty's rules about 'silt flushing' – the practice of clearing out existing Indian dams by opening the sluices – could be used to wreak havoc downstream in the short term, says Tahkkar. 'I hope India doesn't intend to really interfere in a big way with the flow of water going into Pakistan,' he says. 'But we don't know. There has been a build up to this from 2016, which has led to this situation.' Unprecedented escalation While India and Pakistan have always been at loggerheads, Prime Minister Modi's decision to suspend the treaty marks an unprecedented escalation. Over the decades, the water treaty became one part of a complex network of written and unwritten understandings that regulated relations. The 1972 Simla agreement formally froze the line of contact in Kashmir where the two sides had stopped fighting following the Indo-Pakistan War, which raged a year earlier and resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. The two armies, while regularly shelling one another, established hotlines. Generals would invite one another across the frontline to go duck shooting. When the Telegraph visited the contact line in 2019, a Pakistani officer explained that we were in view of Indian snipers who had only recently opened fire but predicted with confidence there would be no fighting that day. 'If you look over there, you will see they have visitors too today.' Sure enough, on the other side of no-man's land, a small group of what were presumably Indian journalists could be seen peering curiously in our direction. This level of coordination should not be romanticised. The grim logic of nuclear deterrence – India got the bomb in 1974, Pakistan in 1998 – has been at least as important as the water treaty in dampening the desire for full scale confrontation. But on the whole, the conflict has been relatively well regulated. The fear now is that all those safeguards could come tumbling down. 'They've been at it for such a long time, and there are certain rules of engagement. Now those rules of engagement are being questioned,' says Bajpaee. 'Back in 1999 both countries went to war in Kashmir, but the Indian military response was so restrained they refused to send fighter aircraft across the border into Pakistan-administered Kashmir. That has all changed under the Modi government. In 2016, they carried out strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. And in 2019 they conducted air strikes in Pakistan proper.' Still, he says, there are some limits notionally in place. Water is one. 'These are lines that, essentially, can't be crossed.' Water wars When it comes to using water as a weapon of war, says Michel, 'the Indus has long been on the radar.' But it is far from alone. 'The usage of water management as a tool of geopolitical leverage has been an emerging challenge.' The most infamous water conflict is in the Jordan river valley, where so much water has been syphoned off that the river is little more than a trickle by the time it reaches the Dead Sea. The Nile is another example of upstream dependency, with Sudan and especially Egypt almost entirely dependent on rains that fall on the Ethiopian highlands. In the Tigris and Euphrates system, Syria and Iraq have both accused Turkey of using its control of the headwaters to exert political pressure. At one point Turkey and Syria signed an explicit conflict-related water deal - Turkey promised to release more water to Syria if former leader Bashar al-Assad ceased backing the PKK, a Kurdish insurgent group. In the Mekong river system, meanwhile, China has been building hydroelectric infrastructure both on its own portion and in that of neighbours like Laos and Myanmar – to the alarm of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand. India, at large, is itself a downstream nation. The Brahmaputra river, in the country's east, rises in China and is vulnerable to an enormous hydroelectric project planned by Beijing. The parallel has not been lost on some Indian newspaper commentators, who have cautioned against setting a precedent by holding Pakistan's rivers hostage. It might be best not to give China, a Pakistani ally, any ideas. 'Pakistan is in a spot – its dams only hold about 30 days flow of the Indus. In the dry season Pakistan is heavily dependent on having managed its water resources. That is the chokehold on Pakistan's economy,' says Michel. 'So it is a point of leverage. And that is reflected around the world.' 'It is a combustible mixture of hydrology – where the water comes from – with politics and trust. Look at the Rhine or the Rhone. Dynamics differ because of the trust between those countries. Until recently people would have said the same about relations between the US and Canada over the Columbia river – it's not the Indus or the Mekong or the Nile. But last month, Donald Trump suspended negotiations over the 61-year-old pact which governs the river – including its transnational flood control, power generation and water supply. 'The concern is the Trump administration could use this pause in the context of larger tensions between the US and Canada as a source of leverage,' says Michel. The lesson is simple. Where there is strife, water conflict soon follows.
The Independent
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
What is Indus Water Treaty and why is it so critical for India and Pakistan?
India has announced the suspension of a decades-old river-sharing treaty with Pakistan following an attack in Kashmir that killed 26 people, a move that could mark a turning point in the management of a crucial transboundary water system. New Delhi has blamed Pakistan for Tuesday's attack on tourists in Pahalgam. It has, in fact, long accused the neighbour of supporting terrorism across the border, particularly in Kashmir, where an armed insurgency against Indian rule has raged since the late 1980s. Islamabad has repeatedly denied the accusations. In the wake of the attack, Indian foreign secretary Vikram Misri announced the suspension of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, along with the downgrading of diplomatic ties and closure of land borders. The decision is significant because the treaty has survived wars, border conflicts, and prolonged diplomatic freezes between the rival neighbours. Indeed, water has been one of the few stable elements in their strained relationship. But not anymore, it seems. What is the Indus Water Treaty? The treaty, brokered by the World Bank, divided the six rivers of the Indus basin between the two countries. The three western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, Chenab – went to Pakistan and the three eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas, Sutlej – to India. It allowed India limited use of the western rivers for non-consumptive purposes like hydropower generation but prohibited it from altering their flows in a way that could harm Pakistan's access. In spite of this, New Delhi declared that it would stop participation in the treaty 'until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. Why 'suspension' is contentious There is no legal provision in the treaty for suspension, making India's announcement unprecedented. Experts say while India's move may not translate into an immediate disruption of river flows, it erodes the predictability the deal ensured, which in turn could unsettle Pakistan's already fragile water systems. 'There is no provision for suspension in the treaty, so we are entering into a grey area,' Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, told The Independent. 'If India stops participating in the mechanisms such as data-sharing and project reviews, it could still have implications for how downstream flows are managed.' According to the treaty, India is required to allow 43 million acre-feet of water to flow into Pakistan annually. That makes up roughly 80 per cent of Pakistan's total surface water, a crucial lifeline for its agriculture, cities, and hydropower generation. Pakistan's growing concerns Pakistani officials strongly condemned the decision. Energy minister Awais Leghari described the suspension as 'an act of water warfare; a cowardly, illegal move'. 'Every drop is ours by right and we will defend it with full force, legally, politically, and globally,' he said. Environmental experts in Pakistan say the bigger threat lies not in India cutting off water flows, which is hydrologically and politically difficult, but in the slow degradation of river systems and the loss of predictability. Muhammad Abdullah Deol, a water scientist with Green Planet Consultant Netherlands, said this moment could be an opportunity for renegotiation of the treaty to reflect the realities of the 21st century. 'Everything changes with time. It was in the 1960s. If we look at the geography, the science, technology, and population, I think it would be good if both countries can just negotiate, renegotiate,' he told The Independent. Mr Deol pointed out that both countries were using outdated irrigation techniques that ended up wasting vast quantities of water – something that could no longer be afforded as populations grew and climate impacts worsened. 'We need to work on our agriculture, and we need to renegotiate because, like I said, with the changing world everything is changing,' he said. 'So I think for the peace and prosperity of both people at the end of the day, it's 13 per cent of the human population, and we should sit together and we should use water for peace and not for power.' Mr Deol also raised environmental concerns. There could be damage to coastal ecosystems due to less freshwater reaching the Indus Delta, for instance. 'Running water itself is a form of protection,' he said. 'When the river reaches the ocean, it carries sediments that maintain the coastline. Without that, the ocean rises and eats away land – and Pakistan is already losing land to the sea.' He said some Pakistani policymakers believed the treaty, in its current form, failed to account for issues such as wastewater discharge from India and the cumulative ecological impacts downstream. Other regional experts agree that the treaty no longer reflects the environmental and political landscape of today. Ambika Vishwanath, founder director of the Kubernein Initiative, said while the treaty was 'technocratic and engineering-led', it did not anticipate the extreme climate patterns now seen across South Asia. 'The treaty didn't take into account climate change – because that science didn't exist then. But the kind of flooding, glacier melt and droughts we're seeing now were never part of the design,' she said. 'That's why this suspension, even if temporary, opens a window to revisit how the treaty works.' Still, experts warn that India's decision to step away from its treaty obligations could set a damaging precedent for future transboundary water negotiations – not just in South Asia but globally. India itself is a lower riparian in other international river basins, such as the Brahmaputra, where it insists on the sanctity of flow-sharing principles. The Indus Water Treaty may not be perfect, but it is a rare example of enduring cooperation between two rival nations. Its suspension – even without immediate consequences – marks a shift towards uncertainty, with water again at the centre of geopolitical risk in the region.
