Context : Legal Status of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)
- IWT (1960) is a bilateral treaty brokered by the World Bank between India and Pakistan.
- Grants India exclusive use of eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) and limited, non-consumptive rights over western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab).
- Article XII: The treaty can only be modified or terminated by mutual agreement via a ratified treaty—unilateral withdrawal is not permissible.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), 1969
- India is not a signatory, Pakistan has signed but not ratified.
- Article 62 (Customary International Law): Treaties may be suspended/terminated if there is a fundamental change in circumstances.
- ICJ affirms this rule as binding under customary international law.
- But the bar for “fundamental change” is very high — political or security shifts alone may not qualify.
Interpretation of “Abeyance” by India
- India used the term “held in abeyance”, which lacks legal recognition in international treaty law.
- Possibly a diplomatic euphemism for “suspension” rather than “termination”.
- Suspension must still meet legal standards set under VCLT (e.g., Article 62).
ICJ Precedents
- In Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros (1997), ICJ rejected Hungary’s claim of environmental and political change as grounds to terminate a dam treaty with Slovakia.
- Suggests India must show a direct link between the changed circumstances and the core objective of the IWT.
Strategic and Economic Impact on Pakistan
- 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture and about 1/3rd of its hydropower rely on Indus basin waters.
- India’s existing infrastructure (run-of-the-river hydro projects) does not allow large-scale water withholding.
- However, India could:
- Redesign hydro projects for more storage.
- Use “drawdown flushing”, releasing water suddenly — potentially harmful for Pakistan downstream.
- Create strategic uncertainty over water flow, impacting Pakistan’s agrarian economy.
Geopolitical and Diplomatic Implications
- Any disruption could trigger international concerns over transboundary water conflict.
- Could undermine India’s image as a responsible regional power.
- May prompt global arbitration or pressure via World Bank or UN bodies.
