On Kashmir’s shopfronts, commoners in their passionate yet cautious conversations on geopolitical matters foresee India and Pakistan fighting the next war over the Kashmir waters. In such conversations, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT, 1960) features prominently.
After putting the IWT in abeyance as a response to the April 22 Pahalgam attack, India is reportedly working on a mega inter-basin water transfer plan to possibly divert surplus flows from Jammu and Kashmir waters to neighbouring Punjab and Haryana, and even Rajasthan. In this regard, a feasibility study is being conducted to explore the possibility of constructing a 113-km-long canal that would redirect surplus flows from Kashmir to other States. This proposal has sparked a war of words between the politicians of Kashmir and Punjab, and is likely to rekindle inter-state water disputes and exacerbate geopolitical tensions in the near future.
Diverting Kashmir’s waters to Punjab or elsewhere is a “red line” for the Unionist camp in Jammu and Kashmir. In pragmatic terms, however, Unionist parties in the Valley wield little influence, and their statements amount to mere rhetoric and posturing.
Given this backdrop, at a recent press conference, Jammu and Kashmir’s Chief Minister Omar Abdullah vociferously opposed the idea of diverting surplus waters from Kashmir to other States. “Nobody will take our water. I will not permit it. First, let us use our water for ourselves, and then we will talk of others,” Abdullah said in response to a question about a proposed canal for diverting excessive water from Jhelum, Chenab, and Indus—the three major rivers of the Indus system—to Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan.
“Here, in Jammu, there is a drought-like situation. [The] taps are running dry. Why would we divert our waters to Punjab? It already has three [eastern]) rivers under the Indus Waters Treaty. Did Punjab supply us with water when we needed it?” Abdullah asked. “They made us cry for many years.”
Abdullah was referring to the 45-year-old dispute between Kashmir and Punjab over the construction of the Shahpurkandi (barrage) dam project on the Ravi in Punjab’s Pathankot region. His statement predictably stirred up a political hornet’s nest, inviting furious reactionary statements from several politicians from the Punjab region.
The Abdullahs-led National Conference (NC), Kashmir’s oldest political formation with a history of over nine decades, maintains that the IWT has been “unfair” to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and requires “tweaking” to benefit native Kashmiris, not outsiders.
“This is our water. It will stay in Kashmir. Presently, we are facing a drought-like situation. Our paddy fields are running dry. There is severe water scarcity. The people of Jammu and Kashmir should decide the fate of their waters, not anyone else,” Imran Nabi Dar, State spokesperson of the NC, told Frontline.
Also Read | India’s foreign policy has lost its moral compass
Mehbooba Mufti, former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and president of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), is of the view that Abdullah’s recent statements on the IWT are “provocative” in spirit. What Abdullah and Imran Dar are saying is nothing more than posturing. The water dispute is far more complicated than it appears.
First, the IWT is an international accord brokered by the World Bank. Second, the current government in Jammu and Kashmir is directly ruled by the New Delhi-appointed Lieutenant Governor. Under the present arrangement, Abdullah, as Chief Minister, enjoys very little power to walk the talk. His government’s hands are tied in more ways than one. Law and order and other major areas of governance are under the control of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. Third, the rights of lower riparian states such as Pakistan need to be factored into a geopolitical framework.
There are legal challenges as well.
Under the Constitution, water is primarily a State subject. Nonetheless, Entry 56 of the Union List grants the federal government the power to regulate and develop inter-State rivers and river valleys, thus rendering inter-State water the prerogative of the Union government. Moreover, the Inter-State River Water Disputes (ISRWD) Act, 1956, provides a framework for referring disputes related to the waters of inter-State rivers.
That is exactly what Haseeb Drabu, who was Finance Minister in the BJP-PDP coalition government that came to power in Jammu and Kashmir after the Assembly election of 2014, alluded to in a conversation with Frontline: “Even though water falls under the State List (Entry 17), inter-State water is very much a ‘Union prerogative’ under Entry 56 of the Union List.”
“Given the situation that Jammu and Kashmir is in [as a Union Territory, and not a full-fledged State], there should be no doubt that the Union will decide,” Drabu told Frontline, adding that the ISRWD Act, provides the framework and allows States to request the federal government to set up a Water Disputes Tribunal to resolve disputes by means of a formal process.
The IWT, mediated by the World Bank, is a water-distribution treaty between India and Pakistan which has remained intact for the last 65 years. The Indian government put the IWT in abeyance soon after the Pahalgam incident in April 2025, inviting sharp criticism from Islamabad.
Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan posing with a delegation of farmers from the northern States on May 19, 2025, after a meeting where he said the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty had corrected a historic wrong perpetrated by the Jawaharlal Nehru government.
| Photo Credit:
PTI
On June 27, the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that New Delhi’s decision of holding the IWT in abeyance did not deprive the court of its competence to deliver judgment on Islamabad’s complaints against its arch-rival.
New Delhi has been opposing the proceedings of the Court of Arbitration ever since its creation by the World Bank in October 2022. The Ministry of External Affairs, in its June 27 statement, described the move as the “latest charade at Pakistan’s behest”.
The IWT allowed the nuclear arch-rivals to use the water available in the Indus river and its tributaries. The treaty grants Islamabad rights to the Indus basin’s western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—for irrigation, drinking, and non-consumptive uses like hydropower. While New Delhi controls the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—for unrestricted use, it cannot significantly alter their flow. According to the agreement, India is allowed to use the western rivers for limited purposes (power generation and irrigation), without storing or diverting large volumes.
The IWT was signed in Pakistan’s port city of Karachi on September 19, 1960, by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan President Ayub Khan.
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, former Pakistan Foreign Minister and senior leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), warned New Delhi of serious repercussions if the water flow is stopped to the lower riparian state, Pakistan. “We do not want war. But if water is used as a weapon, Pakistan will be forced to act and we are in a position to defeat India just as we have before,” said the son of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto during the Pakistan National Assembly’s budget session on June 23.
The PPP leader accused the Narendra Modi-led Indian government of “violating international law” by unilaterally suspending the IWT. “India has only two options: share water fairly or we will take it from all six rivers,” Bhutto warned.
The China factor
Chinese analysts have been consistently warning New Delhi against any “misadventures”.
Victor Gao, Chair Professor, Soochow University and expert on international relations, during his several interactions with Indian media channels, cautioned New Delhi in these words: “The China-Pakistan relation is iron-clad. China will not allow any violation of Pakistan’s legitimate interest in defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity, including peaceful use of the water of the Indus river, specifically because of the treaty between India and Pakistan about the allocation of the water.”
Gao, who is considered close to the Chinese establishment, explained that China is an upper-stream country while India is a lower-stream country both in the western part as well as the eastern part. According to him, denial or diversion of water to mid-stream or lower riparian states will have serious consequences. “Don’t do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. India is not really in the upper stream. India is a mid-stream country. So, be peaceful with your neighbour rather than engaging in a political spectacle,” he told an Indian television channel in an interview.
The Baglihar Dam, a day after India cut the flow of water through the dam on the Chenab river, following suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, in Ramban district of Jammu and Kashmir.
| Photo Credit:
PTI
Gao further noted that denying water to downstream countries against the treaty obligations in peace times is “war against humanity” and, in war times, “it may be considered a war crime”. “So, this is very serious. You are talking about millions of the people in the downstream who may be denied the use of water and, because 70 per cent of a human body is composed of water, if you deny human beings the use and benefit of water, you are really killing them,” the Chinese expert added.
Gao’s warnings are not to be taken lightly. Beijing controls the Brahmaputra river. Although some politicians in India argue that the Brahmaputra significantly relies on Indian monsoons and is powered by the country’s geography, concerns regarding Chinese power to disrupt the flow of the waters cannot be undermined.
According to Rao Farman Ali, the author of Water, Polity and Kashmir, the IWT stands as a remarkable testament to complex interdependence—surviving decades of conflict. Ali told Frontline that the treaty’s true potential as a sustainable peace-building structure remains untapped. He suggests a trilateral “1.2.3 Agreement between China, India and Pakistan, focusing on the immediate demilitarisation of the Siachen Glacier—the vital blue crystal feeding the Indus [Neelam-Kishanganga]—is an urgent imperative”.
Ali believes that the Siachen Glacier is a “stark symbol of shared vulnerability”. He suggests a joint India-Pakistan climate change task force to preserve the entire Himalayan Cryosphere. According to him, “putting the IWT in abeyance is unfortunate in the humanistic framework, too. The recent escalation between the two neighbours that witnessed the impact of sophisticated drones and beyond-visual-range missiles proved that perpetual India-Pakistan hostility is unaffordable.”
The Kashmir-based analyst says that New Delhi and Islamabad must transcend zero-sum thinking and “embrace functional cooperation”.
According to Ali, Abdullah has been issuing wavering political statements on the IWT “beyond his pay grade”. “The talk of weaponising water or diverting the lifeblood rivers like Chenab isn’t just about opening the floodgates to instability, it risks unleashing a catastrophic downstream effect far worse than any bomb.”
Also Read | By sending MP delegations worldwide, India internationalised Kashmir issue: Michael Kugelman
Pravin Sawhney, noted strategic and defence expert and author, agreed. “Stopping water to Pakistan or diverting Kashmir waters to other States in violation of the IWT will be an act of war. And it is a war that India cannot win,” Sawhney told Frontline.
Sukhjinder Singh Randhava, Punjab’s former Chief Minister and a senior Congress leader, took a dig at Abdullah while reminding him that Punjab produces food right up to the no man’s land bordering Jammu and Kashmir. “And Punjab produces food for the whole of India. Water is lifeline for Punjab. The statement that Omar Abdullah has made borders on being unpatriotic…I am saddened by his [Omar’s] statement,” Sukhjinder Singh told a news gathering agency.
Professor Manjit Singh, noted sociologist and political analyst based in Chandigarh, argued that politicians of all hues should avoid loose talk on sensitive issues that involve geopolitics. “Unfortunately, it is a parasitic culture to issue lofty statements on serious issues like water. The Brahmaputra is a potential water bomb. No one dares speak against China, but politicians from Kashmir and Punjab are indulging in political theatrics,” Prof. Manjit Singh told Frontline.
According to the veteran political commentator, construction of dams and violation of the IWT will result in displacement of people and create ecological imbalance.
Professor Singh concluded by saying that “India’s foreign policy is on a long holiday”.
Gowhar Geelani is a senior journalist and author of Kashmir: Rage and Reason.
Source:https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/kashmir-indus-waters-treaty-water-dispute-india-pakistan-canal-diversion/article69754239.ece