India’s Suspension of Indus Waters Treaty: Legal Grounds and Global Ramifications

Last Updated on May 23, 2025 by Athi Venkatesh

Following the terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, the Government of India (GOI) initiated multiple countermeasures against Pakistan, notably suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960. This decision, conditional upon Pakistan ceasing support for cross-border terrorism, has drawn international attention. Pakistan has criticized the move as a violation of international law and signaled its intention to approach international forums like the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Pakistan contends that the IWT, which lacks any provision for unilateral suspension or termination except under Article XII(4) that mandates mutual consent, is designed to be perpetual, citing its survival through three wars. However, such claims are legally unsustainable. No treaty is eternal, and international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), recognizes situations allowing unilateral suspension or termination, especially in case of material breach or fundamental change in circumstances.

India argues that Pakistan has consistently obstructed legitimate Indian projects on Western rivers, violating the IWT’s spirit. Projects like Tulbul, Kishenganga, and others have faced persistent objections from Pakistan despite international rulings supporting India’s stance. India’s efforts under Article XII(3) to modify treaty terms have also been thwarted, indicating a pattern of bad faith conduct by Pakistan, which arguably constitutes a material breach under Article 60 of the VCLT. Although India is not a party to the VCLT, its principles reflect customary international law, applicable to all states.

Further, under Article 62 of the VCLT, a fundamental change in circumstances—such as rising Indian water demands and continued hostilities from Pakistan—can justify treaty suspension. The vastly unequal water distribution and demographic shifts bolster India’s case. Continuous ceasefire violations and public admissions by Pakistani officials supporting terror groups underscore a breakdown in peaceful bilateral relations, critical to the treaty’s function.

Nonetheless, the practical effects of the suspension are currently limited. India lacks the infrastructure to store or redirect large volumes of river water, making sustained blockage unfeasible. Sudden releases, if attempted, may risk floods in Pakistani territories, potentially violating humanitarian obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Despite legal validity under international norms, India must exercise caution to avoid endangering civilian lives while reinforcing its sovereign right to defend national interests.