Water as a weapon: Analyzing India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty

The Indus Water Treaty has always been hailed by analysts and scholars as the only treaty that has remained functional despite Pakistan and India’s cutthroat rivalry over the decades. India’s handling of outstanding issues between India and Pakistan through unilateralism has also shattered the slightest hope that any mutually agreed upon framework between these two adversaries can work.  This must ring alarming bells in the ears of Indian and Pakistan authorities and world at large given the two countries have nuclear weapons. This unilateral breach of IWT could best be termed as “irrational escalation” India’s aggressive actions against Pakistan devoid of any proof are completely irrational and serve only to appease the masses to hide its security lapses. The term “Irrational escalation” could be described as the trend to continue repeating the same course of action despite negative consequences, often to maintain prior image of being tough on rivals and adversaries. It demonstrates India’s commitment bias, which is the predisposition to stick with decisions made in the past even when they have had negative effects. The aftermath of Balakot crises should serve as a reminder to India that such gimmicks and blame game won’t do any good for their foreign policy relations and national interest. It can be used to tame their hyper and ultra nationalist masses but in a long run these course of actions prove counterproductive.

The Pahalgam incident and India’s suspension of Indus water treaty confirms a most dangerous trend that water will be used as a weapon in future. Unlike other natural resources, water has an ability to flow in space. It is likely to be challenged because of this distinctive trait. Despite engaging in hydro politics in the region, both countries historically have agreed not to use water as a catalyst for conflicts. But now this blatant use of water as a weapon by India against Pakistan is setting the wrong precedence in the region which will sooner or later haunt India as well. As India itself is a downstream riparian in Brahamaputra water system.

Since India is adamant to use water as a weapon the question here arises can it restricts the flow of water from rivers received by Pakistan (Jhelum, Chenab and Indus) under IWT? The answer is that it is highly unlikely to happen immediately or in near future as for this purpose India would have to build dams and storages on these rivers immediately. This doesn’t seem plausible given that such kind of infrastructure requires massive finance and is a highly time taking process. But it will definitely add new dynamics in the regional hydro politics. Being an upstream authority it can play politics over the control of the volume and timing of flows into Pakistan. The lack of predictability in the timing of water flow would definitely be challenging for Pakistan’s agricultural and energy needs.  It can also add more complexities into already tense Pak-India relations as Pakistan has made it clear that any move by India to disrupt water flow into Pakistan from western rivers would be considered an act of war.

Another important aspect in this whole fiasco is that IWT does not say anything related to suspension however, its article XII makes this unilateral act by India highly questionable. According to Article XII, subsection 4 of the Indus Waters Treaty. The terms of the agreement shall “continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two governments,”

In the same vein, Article 57 of the Vienna Convention, which addresses the “suspension” of treaties states that “the operation of a treaty with regard to all the parties or to a particular party may be suspended: (a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting states”

Given its dubious justification and malicious motive, there is absolutely no question that India’s behavior is extremely provocative and irrational. So here is a quick question for India to ponder that amid indigenous armed struggle in IIOK, escalating regional tensions and violating international norms would be worth it? Certainly not. Firstly, the hydro political dynamics has the tendency to trigger a spillover effect. Using water as a weapon could set a precedent for others to adopt this practice to teach their opponents a lesson. Such tit for tat approach could then escalate the violence and tensions thus weakening the international norms and humanitarian law which most of the countries of the world adhere to, at least in writing.

Secondly, India needs to keep in mind that riparian equality and solidarity form the foundation of the international framework on trans boundary water administration. The exercise of territorial integrity and restricted sovereignty makes this principle operative. According to the notion of restricted sovereignty, states are unable to fully utilize their exclusionary authority. If we put it another way, riparian states—that is, upstream nations—are unable to use all of the water that passes through their borders, denying downstream nations access to or usage of it.

Three issue-specific norms are part of this international regime:

(a) Only riparian states have rights over their internationally shared water;

(b) Downstream states have a “natural right” to water; and

(c) Water Weaponization is prohibited globally.

To sum up, water weaponization is a global taboo and its prohibition is essentially incorporated into international humanitarian law as well as a standard that ethically burdens riparian states. International water conventions now include two additional guidelines: riparian states must use water resources fairly and sensibly, and they must refrain from causing each other major harm. Lastly, decision-making processes are often covered by particular provisions in each agreement or treaty or, if necessary, handled at the International Court of Justice. So, Pakistan as a downstream nation has its “natural right to water” protected as per international law.