JK News Today
At a time of rising regional tension, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri reaffirmed New Delhi’s long-standing commitment to peace, but noted that continued provocations had forced India to reconsider the Indus Waters Treaty. “The very preamble of the treaty says it was concluded in a spirit of goodwill and friendship,” Misri pointed out. “India has demonstrated exceptional patience and restraint by upholding the Indus Waters Treaty for over 65 years, despite repeated provocations.”
In response to India’s move, World Bank President Ajay Banga clarified the institution’s position. “We are not a judge or a decision-maker. The World Bank has no role in suspending or continuing the treaty,” he said during an interaction with reporters. Banga explained that the Bank’s function is strictly procedural, it can help facilitate the appointment of a Neutral Expert or convene a Court of Arbitration only when both countries agree. “We’re the ones who manage the trust fund that pays for these processes. But the treaty is between two sovereign nations. It’s up to them to decide its future.” Banga also expressed concern over public misperception. “There’s this assumption that the World Bank can fix or enforce the treaty. We can’t. Our role was defined when the treaty was created we help if both sides want to resolve something That’s it.”
Signed in 1960, the IWT was brokered by the World Bank to manage the division of six rivers of the Indus basin. The Eastern Rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej were allocated to India, while the Western Rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab were reserved for Pakistan, with India permitted limited non-consumptive usage such as hydropower and agriculture. The Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) was created to ensure coordination and dispute resolution.
India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance is being described as a “strategic pause” not a withdrawal, but a recalibration. It follows years of diplomatic outreach, during which India sent multiple notices to Pakistan proposing a renegotiation of treaty terms under Article XII(3). According to the Ministry of External Affairs, Pakistan failed to respond to these formal invitations for dialogue.
Despite the wars of 1965, 1971 and 1999, and the constant undercurrent of hostility, India never used the treaty as leverage. Misri emphasized, “Even when Pakistan imposed wars on us, even in the face of terrorism in Kashmir, we stayed committed to the treaty. But Pakistan’s repeated obstruction of India’s legitimate rights under the agreement, especially in project implementation, has left us with no choice.”
The government has cited several “fundamental changes in circumstances” ranging from outdated engineering assumptions, demographic pressures, evolving clean energy needs, to persistent security threats, as grounds for reassessment. Projects on the Western Rivers that are within India’s rights under the treaty were repeatedly challenged by Pakistan at international forums, causing delays and stalling development.
The April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which India attributes to groups operating from Pakistani soil, was the tipping point. Officials stated that the incident once again underscored how Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism has eroded the goodwill on which the treaty was built and severely obstructed India’s ability to exercise its rightful claims while safeguarding its citizens.
India’s stance marks a turning point in Indo-Pak relations. It reflects a long-overdue reassertion of national sovereignty and a firm stand against decades of hostility, obstruction and cross-border terrorism. While Pakistan has responded by threatening India, India has made it clear that its door remains open to dialogue provided it is meaningful, responsible and acknowledges today’s ground realities.
