India Vows Never to Reinstate Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan🌊

India Suspends Indus Waters Treaty After Deadly Kashmir Attack

New Delhi has suspended its participation in the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty after a deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir in April left 26 people dead — an act India has blamed on Pakistan-backed militants.

Amit Shah: "The Treaty Will Never Be Reinstated"🚫

India’s federal Home Minister, Amit Shah, announced that the treaty will never be reinstated and that India will instead divert the water for domestic use.

Speaking to The Times of India, Shah said, It will never be restored. We will divert the water that was going to Pakistan to Rajasthan by building a canal. Pakistan has been receiving this water unjustifiably, and that will end.

Understanding the Indus Waters Treaty🌊

The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960, governs how India and Pakistan share the Indus River system:

• 🇮🇳 India controls the three eastern rivers — Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas.
• 🇵🇰 Pakistan controls the three western rivers — Jhelum, Chenab, and Indus.

The treaty also established the India-Pakistan Indus Commission, which has historically resolved disputes and endured wars and tensions for over six decades.

Escalation & Recent Ceasefire⚔️

The attack triggered the worst military escalation between the two nuclear-armed nations in decades, bringing them close to war. Although a ceasefire was agreed last month, Shah’s statement suggests New Delhi does not plan to restore the treaty in its current form.

Pakistan’s Reaction & Legal Options

Pakistan has not officially responded to Shah’s statement yet. However, its officials maintain that the treaty cannot be unilaterally suspended or terminated.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said last month, The treaty cannot be amended or terminated unilaterally. Blocking river water will be seen as an act of war.

Islamabad is reportedly considering legal action under international law to challenge India’s move. Legal experts point out that the treaty lacks any provision for putting obligations “in abeyance.”

“India has used the word ‘abeyance’, but that’s not a valid concept under the treaty,” Pakistani lawyer Ahmer Bilal Soofi told Al Jazeera. “It also violates customary international law, which requires an upper riparian country to ensure uninterrupted flow for a lower riparian state.”

What’s Next for the Treaty?🔍

Some analysts believe the treaty may survive in some form but will likely face significant changes.

“It won’t continue in its current form,” said Anuttama Banerji, a New Delhi-based political analyst. “There will be calls for its revision, review, and modification, especially given new challenges like climate change and groundwater depletion that the original treaty did not address.”