Amin Rezainejad – Subcontinental Affairs Expert

In response to this terrorist incident, in addition to imposing severe restrictions on Pakistani citizens living in India, Indian Prime Minister Modi announced that he had unilaterally abrogated the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) and that Pakistan’s share of Indus water would be reduced from 80 percent to 50 percent from now on.

In contrast, the Pakistani government officially announced that any interruption or diversion of water flow from shared rivers by India would be considered an “act of war” and would be responded to with full power. There were even nuclear threats in the Pakistani media.

On the one hand, China announced that it would support Pakistan in this dispute, although it called for the continuation of water diplomacy between the two countries. However, in contrast, the United States, while condemning the Kashmir attack, called on both countries to find a responsible solution and avoid any escalation of tensions.

In the 1950s, the World Bank, at the initiative of its then-president, Eugene Black, acted as the main mediator in the negotiations between India and Pakistan to share the waters of the Indus River, which led to the drafting of the Indus Water Treaty in 1960. However, this mediation did not come with any guarantees, and in response to Pakistan’s complaint against India, the World Bank has stated that it cannot interfere in the unilateral decisions of countries.

India has threatened to cancel the Indus Water Treaty before. In February 2019, after the terrorist attack by the Jaish-e-Mohammed group on a convoy of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in Kashmir that killed 40 people and injured dozens, Indian Prime Minister Modi announced that he would cancel the Indus Water Treaty. The threat never materialized, and many experts suggested that Modi was trying to win votes in the elections that year. But this time, on the eve of the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) elections in India, and at a time when many experts believe that the situation of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is not good at all, the Pahalgam terrorist incident has provided an excuse to suspend the water treaty formally.

The ruling party is planning to use a repeated psychological operation to win more seats in the upcoming elections, and there is a possibility that the treaty will be restored after the party’s electoral situation improves.

On the other hand, fully implementing the water stoppage technically requires time, extensive financial resources for dam construction and engineering changes, which may have high political and environmental costs for India. Pakistan can also put international pressure on India through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the World Bank, the UN Security Council, and even non-binding resolutions of the UN General Assembly.

It should not be forgotten that a complete water cut by India, in addition to exacerbating water crises in Pakistan, which lacks adequate water storage infrastructure, could further destabilize the Indian subcontinent and negatively affect India’s national security.

Consequently, given the strong and unified reactions of Pakistani authorities, international warnings from permanent members of the Security Council and the World Bank, technical complexities, and irreparable regional consequences, it does not seem likely that India will be able to completely abrogate the Indus Water Treaty without facing serious threats and widespread consequences. While New Delhi may temporarily suspend water flows or impose restrictions on Pakistan, a complete and lasting abrogation would be highly challenging and risky, particularly without reducing tensions between the two nuclear powers.