By Sardar Khan Niazi

For more than six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has been cited as a rare example of cooperation between India and Pakistan—an agreement that survived wars, crises and diplomatic breakdowns. Brokered by the World Bank in 1960, the treaty allocated the eastern rivers to India and the western rivers–Indus, Jhelum and Chenab–to Pakistan, while allowing India limited, non-consumptive use of the western rivers under strict technical constraints. Today, however, that balance is under growing strain. India’s persistent actions increasingly amount to violations of both the letter and spirit of the treaty. At the heart of the problem is India’s expanding hydropower construction on the western rivers. Projects such as Kishanganga on the Jhelum tributary and Ratle on the Chenab are not isolated cases; they are part of a broader pattern. Pakistan has repeatedly raised objections, arguing that the design features of these projects–particularly gated spillways and excessive pondage–give India the ability to manipulate river flows. While India insists that its projects are run-of-the-river and therefore compliant, the technical details tell a more troubling story. Control structures that allow upstream regulation undermine Pakistan’s water security, especially during critical sowing seasons. Equally concerning is Indian consistent reluctance to engage with dispute-resolution mechanisms as envisioned by the treaty. The IWT provides a clear, graduated framework: technical issues are to be addressed through the Permanent Indus Commission; unresolved differences can be referred to a neutral expert; and disputes of a legal nature may go to a Court of Arbitration. In recent years, however, India has attempted to sidestep or delay these processes, preferring ad hoc interpretations that suit its strategic interests. Such behavior weakens not only the treaty but also the very principle of rule-based international cooperation. Water, for Pakistan, is not merely a resource–it is an existential necessity. An overwhelmingly agrarian economy, Pakistan depends on predictable flows from the western rivers to sustain food security, livelihoods and energy generation. Even minor upstream manipulations can have outsized downstream consequences. Reduced flows during lean periods, sudden releases causing flooding, or cumulative impacts of multiple projects all exacerbate Pakistan’s already severe water stress, compounded by climate change and population growth. Periodic threats to revisit or suspend the IWT–often following crises in bilateral relations–suggest a willingness to weaponize water. Even when not acted upon, such statements erode trust and normalize the idea that treaty obligations are conditional. International water law rests on the principle that shared rivers must unite, not divide, riparian states. Undermining this norm sets a dangerous precedent far beyond South Asia. Pakistan, for its part, has shown restraint by continuing to seek redress through treaty mechanisms and international forums. Yet restraint should not be mistaken for acquiescence. Islamabad must remain vigilant, invest in technical and legal capacity, and consistently internationalize the issue where necessary. The World Bank, as a guarantor of the treaty, also bears responsibility to ensure that dispute-resolution processes are not diluted or politicized. Ultimately, the Indus Waters Treaty is not a favor granted by one state to another; it is a binding international agreement. Its endurance has long been a testament to the possibility of cooperation amid hostility. India’s continued violations–whether through design manipulation, procedural obstruction or coercive rhetoric–risk turning this success story into another casualty of regional rivalry. Water security in South Asia is too critical to be held hostage to unilateralism. Respecting the Indus Waters Treaty in both form and spirit is not just a legal obligation for India; it is a moral and strategic imperative. The alternative is a future of deepening mistrust, environmental degradation and instability–one in which everyone, upstream and downstream alike, ultimately loses.