The messaging from putting the IWT in ‘abeyance’

India declared the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 to be in ‘abeyance’, in response to Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism, especially after the Pahalgam terror attack. The move signals a temporary suspension of cooperation under the treaty, aimed at pressuring Pakistan without officially terminating the treaty.

LEGAL STANDING AND STRATEGIC CALCULATION

• Lack of Legal Basis for 'Abeyance': The term ‘abeyance’ has no legal recognition under either the IWT or the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT, 1969). India is not a party to the VCLT, and even under customary international law, unilateral suspension of treaty obligations is not legally valid, making the move more symbolic than enforceable.
• Articles of IWT and VCLT Constraints: Articles XII(3) and (4) of IWT mandate mutual ratification for modification or termination, and VCLT Articles 60–62 allow suspension only in cases of material breach, impossibility, or fundamental change, none of which India has formally invoked, limiting India’s legal maneuverability.
• Tactical Pause in Treaty Implementation: The ‘abeyance’ allows India to withhold procedural cooperation, such as sharing hydrological data or notifying reservoir operations, thereby impairing Pakistan’s flood forecasting and water security, while avoiding overt treaty violation.

TWO-LEVEL GAME: DOMESTIC SENTIMENT VS DIPLOMATIC SIGNAL

• Domestic Political Calculations: The Cabinet Committee on Security likely adopted abeyance to satisfy public sentiment, showing decisive action after a terror attack, and to gain room for infrastructure advancement on run-of-the-river projects on western rivers like Ratle and Tulbul.
• Diplomatic Risks of Escalation: Using IWT as a counter-terror tool is a high-stakes gamble, as Pakistan sees it as an existential threat. Given Pakistan’s domestic instability and weakened military-civil dynamics, the move risks international escalation and misinterpretation.
• Structural Delays in Project Execution: Despite political will, India’s hydel infrastructure projects face regulatory, environmental, and procedural hurdles, such as clearances in ecologically sensitive zones, which limit immediate material benefits from suspending the treaty.

LONG-TERM STRATEGIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND GLOBAL REPERCUSSIONS

• Damage to India’s Global Image: India’s unilateral invocation of abeyance may undermine its image as a responsible global actor, potentially inviting international legal proceedings under the Permanent Court of Arbitration or International Court of Justice.
• Ecological Fallout of Fast-tracking Projects: Accelerated project execution in the Indus basin, a seismically and ecologically fragile region, risks biodiversity loss, ecological imbalance, and long-term water insecurity, especially in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
• Need for Strategic Coherence: India must balance national security, public sentiment, and ecological sustainability by ensuring its actions align with treaty obligations, international norms, and democratic accountability, avoiding over-militarisation of natural resources.

Practice Question