Presented by: Mr. Arpit

After the horrific Pahalgam terror attack of April 2025, India put the world’s most celebrated
water-sharing treaty “in abeyance.” Here is what international law actually says about that
decision.
Every Indian knows the Pahalgam attack of 22 April 2025, where 26 innocent tourists killed in
Kashmir in one of the deadliest attacks on civilians in decades. What followed in the legal
world was equally significant: India announced it was holding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)
of 1960, a 65-year-old water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan “in abeyance.” But
did India have the legal right to do this?
The IWT, signed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President Ayub Khan under World
Bank mediation, allocates the six rivers of the Indus Basin between the two countries.
Remarkably, it had survived four wars and decades of hostility, widely regarded as the world’s
most resilient transboundary water treaty. Crucially, however, the treaty contains no exit
clause and no provision for unilateral suspension.
Under international law, the Latin maxim Pacta Sunt Servanda — “agreements must be kept”
is the bedrock principle of treaty law. A country cannot simply step away from a binding treaty
because of political displeasure.
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, suspension of a treaty is only permissible
on two narrow grounds: a material breach by the other party (Article 60), or a fundamental
change of circumstances (Article 62). India, though not a signatory to the Convention, is still
bound by these principles as they reflect customary international law. India has deliberately
used the phrase “held in abeyance” rather than “suspended” precisely to sidestep these legal
thresholds.
The lesson for every citizen: treaties are not just political documents. they are binding legal
obligations. When nations treat water as a weapon, it is international law that stands as the last
line of accountability.