Drawing a Line in Water

(Source: The Indian Express, Editorial Page)

Also Read: The Indian Express Editorial Analysis: 14 July 2025
Also Read: The Hindu Editorial Analysis: 14 July 2025

Topic: : GS2 – International Relations; GS3 – Security and Strategic Interests

Context

The recent ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague has re-ignited debates around the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a pact long seen as a symbol of cooperation between two adversarial neighbours—India and Pakistan. While the ruling reinforces the legal sanctity of the Treaty, it also overlooks the growing strategic asymmetry between diplomatic commitments and the reality of terrorism, making it a significant case study for international relations and water diplomacy.

Background: The Indus Waters Treaty

Signed in 1960 with World Bank mediation, the Indus Waters Treaty is one of the few water-sharing agreements that has endured despite multiple wars and political hostilities between India and Pakistan.

• The Treaty gives exclusive rights over the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and over the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan.

• It has survived Indo-Pak wars, Kargil conflict, and the post-Uri tensions, underscoring its perceived resilience and institutional strength.

• However, its limits are now tested in the face of cross-border terrorism, a dimension not envisaged by its original drafters.

Hague Tribunal’s Verdict: Legally Valid, Strategically Vexing

The Hague Tribunal recently declared that:

• India’s procedural objections were invalid and Pakistan’s absence didn’t nullify the arbitration.

• India’s suspension of cooperation mechanisms was not justified under the Treaty’s terms.

• The panel reaffirmed the binding nature of the Treaty, reinforcing the primacy of international law even under duress.

While the verdict is procedurally sound, it fails to consider the asymmetric context in which India operates—where terrorist attacks orchestrated from Pakistani soil continue to challenge peace and mutual trust.

India’s Security Argument: Can Law Exist Without Trust?

India’s stance is shaped by its counter-terrorism doctrine and its belief that treaties are contingent on trust.

• April 2023 Pahalgam attack, which killed soldiers, is seen as a red line crossed by Pakistan-backed groups.

• India has responded by freezing bilateral mechanisms and suspending routine clearances, yet continues to avoid a direct Treaty breach.

• It perceives Pakistan’s legal activism under IWT as a shield to deflect attention from cross-border militancy.

Thus, India contends that cooperation cannot be one-sided—especially when water sharing becomes a tool in the hands of a non-compliant state actor.

Strategic and Diplomatic Dilemmas

The editorial stresses that India must:

• Not undermine international law but strategically use its provisions to press for terror-free cooperation.

• Maintain moral and legal credibility, especially in global forums where soft power matters.

• Recognise that while exiting the Treaty may be tempting, doing so can weaken India’s global legitimacy.

It draws parallels to past examples where treaties—when unanchored in mutual respect—were reduced to hollow formalities.

India vs. Pakistan on IWT Interpretation

Dimension	India’s Position	Pakistan’s Position
Treaty Commitment	Maintains minimal compliance, but freezes cooperative channels	Demands full adherence; uses IWT as leverage in bilateral forums
Arbitration Ruling	Rejected tribunal jurisdiction citing absence of mutual participation	Did not attend, but supports verdict and uses legal platform for political gains
Role of Terrorism	Links IWT cooperation to cessation of cross-border terrorism	Denies correlation; insists on unconditional compliance
Diplomatic Strategy	Seeks conditional cooperation tied to verified peace outcomes	Uses legal channels and international forums to gain moral ground
Long-term Vision	Wants Treaty redefined in context of asymmetric threats and hybrid warfare	Uses Treaty as a permanent instrument regardless of security developments

Conclusion

The Indus Waters Treaty, while technically resilient, is increasingly vulnerable to the disconnect between legality and ground realities. India must walk a tightrope—balancing law with national security, cooperation with conditionality, and regional peace with principled firmness.

Way Forward for India:

1. Engage multilaterally: Use forums like the UN and World Bank to push for Treaty reform based on 21st-century realities.

2. Push for conditionality: Reopen cooperation only upon Pakistan’s verifiable action against terror networks.

3. Educate global stakeholders: Frame the narrative that water sharing under terror is not just unfair but unsustainable.

4. Avoid treaty exit: Focus on reinterpretation, not abandonment, to protect long-term strategic credibility.

Practice Question: (GS-2 | 15 Marks | 250 Words) The Indus Waters Treaty has withstood wars but is now tested by asymmetric conflict. Discuss the legal, diplomatic, and security challenges India faces in sustaining or redefining this agreement in the current geopolitical context.