On 24 April, India announced that it would stop the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) until Pakistan stopped its support for cross -border terrorism. The term “accused” used by the Government of India suggests, suggests a temporary suspension, except for the possibility of restoring Pakistan, Pakistan should take reliable steps to curb terrorism, especially in the light of the Pahgam terror attack on 22 April.
Meaning of ‘Abhay’
The term “Abeyance” IWT or Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties, 1969 (VCLT) does not get any legal recognition. India is not a party for VCLT, while Pakistan has signed it, but has not confirmed it. In addition, unilateral suspension of the treaty obligations, as inherent by “Abhay”, lacks validity under the customary international law and the International Water Act that funds fundamentally promotes ‘water cooperation’ for the international legal order. In severe, in IWT, articles XII (3) and (4) determine that a modifications or termination requires a mutually confirmed treaty-a possibility that seems distant in view of the current situation between India and Pakistan.
Thus, specific provisions of IWT prevent unilateral suspension of basic or procedural obligations. More broadly, in VCLT, articles 60, 61, and 62 only suspension of a treaty in exceptional circumstances, such as a physical violation, impossibility of performance, or a fundamental change in circumstances, respectively – respectively – no India has formally invited. Therefore, India’s call for “prosecution” can be seen as a political signal rather than legally implemented, probably prohibition cooperation has been stopped. Practically, using abyance, India can temporarily refuse to complete all the combined mechanisms required for conducting the treaty. India cannot significantly share details about water resources development projects on Western rivers and water resource development projects to plan for irrigation, hydropower and drinking water that can endanger Pakistan’s water interests, internal water schemes and water security, temporarily not permanently. In addition, India can inflate silt without issuing any prior warning to Pakistan from its reservoirs (which need to be filled with reservoirs).
On January 25, 2023, New Delhi issued a notice to Pakistan through the Indus Commissioners citing a physical violation of IWT. India argued that unilateral decision to reach the permanent court of Pakistan’s unilateral decision violated the controversy solution mechanism of the article VIII and IX. This time, New Delhi has applied the treaty as a anti-terrorism preventive, which selects the word “Abhay” instead of “suspension” or “termination”.
This option raises relevant questions. Article 60 of VCLT allows for the expiry or suspension of a treaty in response to a material violation. Does Pakistan’s alleged support for cross -border terrorism not forms such a violation? Similarly, in Article 62 circumstances, the treaty allows suspension or return in case of fundamental change. Can’t the constant threat to national security from cross -border terrorism to meet this situation? Nevertheless, this argument rests on unused legal interpretations, as neither IWT nor customary international law clearly associates terrorism with treaty obligations, risk in already unstable bilateral relations.
Abeyance as a two-level game
The decision to use “abyance” arises from strategic and strategic ideas. First of all, the Cabinet Committee of India on security may opt for a sudden option as a cautious step to quickly address public sentiment and offer solitude to grieving families. Limited time to fully evaluate legal and diplomatic implications may affect this decision. Second, the abenses can also reflect a calculation step, which gives relief to itself from continuous legal objection, he saw the construction of planned run-of-the-winter projects on Western rivers. India can take advantage of this break to consolidate its rights to use its entitled water usage allocation in the Western and Eastern rivers, especially through infrastructure projects that increase its control over the Indus water. However, this strategy increases stress, because as Pakistan, Indus is very dependent on water, already looking at such tasks as ‘war work’ and a direct threat to its water security.
The choice of vocabulary is even more important, which is the current instability of Pakistan. Pakistan’s political and economic instability is even more visible after Imran Khan’s imprisonment to lose the support of the youth and to internationalize the Kashmir issue during the US vice -president’s visit to India. This uncertainty makes New Delhi challenging to navigate relations with a state in turmoil. Was India fully responsible for this, preparing the decision announced by the Foreign Secretary? In such a context, can IWT’s prosecution really put meaningful pressure on Pakistan? More fundamentally, will Parkistan take advantage of IWT as a tool to force their support for cross -border terrorism?
It is widely accepted that Pakistan, as a failed state, is unlikely to follow India’s demands. By calling for “abyance”, India can buy time to pursue domestic goals, especially the water infrastructure projects on western and eastern rivers. Many of these projects, including Kishanganga, Baglihar and Rattle Hydel projects, have faced significant delays due to Pakistan’s legal intervention. This step can give India the necessary leverage to intensify such an initiative. While Kishanganga and Baglihar were eventually resolved, projects such as Tulbal-Navigation and Rattle are uncertain. The 2021 parliamentary committee’s need to emphasize the need for infrastructure, as well as to fully use India’s allotted water, with these long stress, these long-term stress, marking a significant violation point. However, questions about the viability of such projects remain, especially about environmental approval.
In the coming weeks and months, we can see a complex difference of domestic and international strategies, or “two-level sports” between India and Pakistan. Both countries should manage domestic expectations, engage diplomatically to protect their interests, and justify their actions as a victory. For India, implementing IWT in “abyance” fulfills double objectives: domestic, it displays a firm stance against terrorism, align with public sentiment and strengthen national security priorities. Internationally, it indicates India’s disappointment with the alleged support of Pakistan for terrorism. But can there be anything else for this strategy?
Impact for India
While living in India, this decision echoes emotionally with the public and receive widespread political support, it oversees more intensive implications of such strategy. On the global platform, unilaterally violating IWT, India may face the Permanent Court or International Court of Justice in India, damaging their credibility as a permanent international actor. However, domestic, the strategy raises important questions about the balance between national security and ecological discretion. To strengthen India’s water rights, to ignore the necessary public and environmental inquiry, the crowd of intensifying water infrastructure projects. Such tasks can have severe consequences in biodiversity-rich and seismic sensitive Indus basins. Making weapons of water resources as a strategic tool can provide short -term lewt, but can inadvertently damage India, reduce the fundamental principles of democratic rule and constitutional integrity.
At the same time, the public sentiment demands a strong stand against Pakistan, advocating military works for the 2016 and 2019 surgical strikes with some public intellectuals. While such tasks can serve as an immediate performance of strength, they do not address the root cause of cross-border terrorism. The challenge lies in navigating a path that satisfies the national spirit, ensuring long -term stability and security. New Delhi should carefully prepare its story and future fields around the IWT abyance, ensuring that India aligns with broader geopolitical targets and the sound is the sound legal basis within the IWT structure.
The work done should reflect strategic foresight, which aims to pressurize Pakistan to revaluate its stand on cross-border terrorism while avoiding India’s own ecological and social fabric damage. This remedy should focus on which strengthens India’s position as a responsible global power, taking advantage of its democratic values and environmental leadership. This will maintain the international standing of India, ensuring that its functions inadvertently do not harm the area they want to protect.
Anamika Barua is Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati; Sumit Vij is Assistant Professor, University of Wagoningan and Research, Netherlands; Medha Bisht Associate Professor, South Asian University, India; M. Shawahik Siddiqui is an environmental lawyer in India; Neeraj Singh Manhas is an advisor for South Asia, Parle Policy Initiative, Republic of Korea
Published – 06 May, 2025 12:16 AM IST