Should Water Be Used as a Weapon? Revisiting the Indus Waters Treaty Amid Renewed Tensions
Why in News?
Amid rising hostilities and security challenges in the region, India’s renewed scrutiny of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has triggered intense debate. Questions have emerged over whether water, a critical and strategic resource, can or should be used as a geopolitical tool or “weapon” against Pakistan, especially following terror attacks like Uri (2016) and Pulwama (2019) traced to Pakistan-based groups. 
Introduction
The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, is often hailed as one of the most successful water-sharing agreements in the world. Despite three wars between India and Pakistan, the IWT has endured. However, the changing geopolitical climate and repeated provocations from Pakistan have led India to reassess the utility and fairness of the treaty. This raises an ethical and strategic question: Should water be used as a weapon of statecraft or retaliation?
Key Issues
1. The Indus Waters Treaty – An Overview
-
The IWT allocates eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan.
-
India can use western rivers for non-consumptive purposes, such as hydroelectric power, but cannot divert their flow.
-
The treaty has remained resilient despite political tensions, but is now being questioned in the context of Pakistan’s continued support for terrorism.
2. Water as a Symbolic and Strategic Asset
-
Water is not just a physical resource—it is increasingly viewed as a tool of national power and leverage.
-
Proposals to reconsider India’s commitment to the IWT emerged strongly after terror attacks.
-
In 2016, following the Uri attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated: “Blood and water can’t flow together.”
3. Disputes and Arbitration
-
India’s hydro projects like Kishanganga (on the Jhelum) and Ratle (on the Chenab) have faced objections from Pakistan.
-
Differences over project designs have led to international arbitration and neutral expert appointments.
-
India maintains it has not violated treaty provisions, and arbitration has so far upheld this view.
4. Global Context: Are Water Disputes Unique to South Asia?
-
No. International examples include:
-
Danube River disputes between Hungary and Slovakia, resolved through the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
-
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case: ICJ upheld treaty obligations.
-
Mekong River (Laos, China, Cambodia, Thailand) and Nile River (Egypt, Ethiopia) disputes show water conflicts are a global issue.
-
These were mostly resolved via legal or diplomatic channels, highlighting water’s sensitive nature.
-
Alternative Approaches
Should India Withdraw from the IWT?
-
Pros: Asserts strategic and national interest; could be used as leverage against Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism.
-
Cons: Could attract global criticism; perceived as breaching international commitments; may escalate tensions.
-
Legal experts argue unilateral withdrawal is not permitted and would invite international censure.
-
A smarter approach may be to maximize India’s rights under the treaty by fully utilising the eastern rivers and optimising hydro projects legally on western rivers.
Challenges and the Way Forward
Challenges
-
Diplomatic and legal repercussions of abandoning the treaty.
-
Potential humanitarian impact on populations dependent on river systems.
-
Risk of setting a dangerous precedent for weaponising essential natural resources.
Way Forward
-
India must continue strengthening its water infrastructure within the bounds of the treaty.
-
Enhance internal capacity to store and use permitted water share fully.
-
Push for third-party mediation or arbitration only when necessary, while standing firm on legitimate rights.
-
Promote water diplomacy through regional cooperation to avoid future conflicts.
Conclusion
Water is not merely a human right or a natural resource—it is a strategic and symbolic entity that demands wise stewardship. India’s decision on the Indus Waters Treaty must balance national interest, ethical responsibility, and global perception. Using water as a weapon may offer short-term advantage but could damage long-term diplomatic and environmental stability. Rather than resorting to retribution, India should focus on maximizing its water rights within legal frameworks, strengthening infrastructure, and showcasing its global leadership in responsible water governance.
5 Questions and Answers
Q1. What is the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)?
A: A 1960 water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan, allocating eastern rivers to India and western rivers to Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank.
Q2. Why is the IWT under renewed scrutiny?
A: Due to cross-border terrorism from Pakistan and India’s reconsideration of strategic tools like water in retaliation.
Q3. What are the main disputes related to the IWT?
A: Projects like Kishanganga and Ratle on western rivers have led to disagreements and arbitration, with verdicts mostly supporting India’s position.
Q4. Can India unilaterally exit the IWT?
A: No, it would violate international law and likely invite diplomatic backlash and censure.
Q5. What is the suggested course of action?
A: Maximize the use of India’s share under the treaty legally, improve water infrastructure, and avoid abrupt or retaliatory treaty withdrawal.
