Tag: terrorism

Posted on

668:DIPLOMATIC EARTHQUAKE: SHIMLA AGREEMENT TEETERS ON THE EDGE

 

My article was published on The EurasianTimes website on 04 May 25.

 

The Shimla Agreement, signed on July 2, 1972, between India and Pakistan, is a cornerstone of South Asian diplomacy. Forged in the aftermath of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, the agreement aimed to establish a framework for peaceful bilateral relations and normalise ties between the neighbours. Signed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, the treaty sought to end hostilities, resolve disputes peacefully, and lay the groundwork for cooperation.

On April 24, 2025, Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC), its top civil-military decision-making body, announced the suspension of the 1972 Shimla Agreement, alongside other bilateral agreements with India, in retaliation for India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) on April 23, 2025. This escalation was triggered by the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025, which killed 26 civilians, including two international tourists. The suspension of the Shimla Agreement has thrust it back into the spotlight.

The suspension reignited debates about the Shimla Agreement’s historical significance. In 1972, Indira Gandhi faced criticism from opposition parties, notably the Jan Sangh (predecessor to the BJP), for not converting the ceasefire line into an international border. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then a prominent opposition leader, protested in Shimla against the agreement, arguing it conceded too much to Pakistan.

 

The Treaty

The Shimla Agreement emerged from the geopolitical upheaval of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. The war was triggered by Pakistan’s brutal suppression of the Bangladesh Liberation Movement in East Pakistan, leading to a humanitarian crisis and the displacement of millions of refugees into India. India’s military intervention, supporting the Mukti Bahini (freedom fighters), resulted in a decisive victory, with the surrender of over 93,000 Pakistani soldiers and the creation of Bangladesh.

The war left Pakistan diplomatically and militarily weakened, necessitating negotiations to address post-war issues such as prisoner repatriation, territorial disputes, and the future of bilateral relations. After intense negotiations, the agreement was signed at Barnes Court (now Raj Bhavan) in Shimla. A key sticking point was the status of Kashmir, with India insisting on bilateralism and Pakistan seeking flexibility to internationalise the issue. Personal diplomacy between Gandhi and Bhutto, including late-night discussions, facilitated a compromise that emphasised peaceful coexistence while sidestepping a definitive resolution on Kashmir.

 

Provisions of the Shimla Agreement

The concise Shimla Agreement contains six key provisions to foster peace and cooperation. These provisions are rooted in sovereignty, bilateralism, and non-interference.

    • Bilateral Resolution of Disputes. Both nations committed to resolving all disputes, including the Kashmir issue, through peaceful bilateral negotiations, explicitly rejecting third-party mediation, such as from the United Nations. This clause has been a cornerstone of India’s foreign policy, emphasising that Kashmir is a bilateral matter.
    • Establishment of the Line of Control (LoC). The December 17, 1971, ceasefire line was formalised as the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. Both sides agreed to respect the LoC without unilateral alterations, irrespective of their differing legal interpretations. This provision aimed to stabilise the volatile Kashmir region by establishing a de facto boundary.
    • Respect for Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity. India and Pakistan pledged to respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence and refrain from interference in internal affairs. This clause sought to prevent destabilising actions, such as supporting insurgencies or hostile propaganda.
    • Non-Use of Force. Both countries agreed to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other’s territorial integrity, aligning with the principles of the United Nations Charter. This provision aimed to de-escalate military tensions and promote peaceful coexistence.
    • Normalisation of Relations. The agreement outlined steps to normalise relations, including resuming communications, trade, cultural exchanges, and people-to-people contacts. It also facilitated the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilians detained during the conflict, marking a humanitarian gesture.
    • Recognition of Bangladesh. While not explicitly stated, the agreement paved the way for Pakistan’s eventual diplomatic recognition of Bangladesh as a sovereign nation, resolving a major point of contention post-1971.

Additionally, the agreement included provisions for future meetings between the heads of government to further peace efforts and address unresolved issues. India returned over 13,000 km² of captured Pakistani territory, demonstrating goodwill.

 

Relevance of the Shimla Agreement

The Shimla Agreement remains a pivotal reference point in India-Pakistan relations, shaping diplomatic and strategic interactions for over five decades. Its relevance can be assessed across several dimensions:-

Bilateralism as a Diplomatic Framework. India’s foreign policy bedrock has been the emphasis on bilateral dispute resolution. India has consistently cited the agreement to counter Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue at forums like the United Nations. The agreement’s rejection of third-party mediation aligns with India’s stance that external involvement, particularly from Cold War superpowers or the UN, complicates rather than resolves bilateral issues.

Stabilisation of the Line of Control. The formalisation of the LoC provided a pragmatic mechanism to manage the Kashmir dispute. Despite frequent ceasefire violations, the LoC remains the de facto boundary, guiding peace talks and ceasefire agreements. Its recognition through decades of practice has given it international legitimacy, even after the agreement’s suspension.

Humanitarian and Diplomatic Aspect.  The agreement facilitated the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilians, addressing immediate post-war humanitarian concerns. It also set the stage for Pakistan’s recognition of Bangladesh, reducing a major source of regional hostility. These outcomes underscored the agreement’s role in de-escalating tensions and fostering dialogue, highlighting its humanitarian and diplomatic achievements.

Challenges to Implementation. Despite its noble intentions, the agreement’s vision of normalised relations has been elusive. Persistent mistrust, cross-border terrorism, and differing interpretations of the Kashmir issue have hindered progress. Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise Kashmir and incidents like the 1999 Kargil War and the 1984 Siachen conflict violated the agreement’s spirit, underscoring its fragility.

 Contemporary Context. The agreement’s relevance has been tested by evolving geopolitical dynamics, including the nuclearisation of both nations’ post-1998 and India’s abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, which revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. Pakistan’s suspension of the agreement in 2025 further questions its efficacy, yet India upholds bilateralism as a guiding principle.

 

Repercussions of the Suspension

On April 24, 2025, Pakistan announced the suspension of the Shimla Agreement. This move, coupled with the closure of the Wagah border, trade suspension, and airspace restrictions, marks a significant escalation in bilateral tensions. The suspension’s repercussions are multifaceted.

Symbolic and Diplomatic Impact. Pakistan’s suspension is mainly symbolic, as the agreement’s practical relevance has diminished due to repeated violations. The bilateral dialogue mechanism envisioned under the deal has been dormant, with high-level talks suspended after major incidents like the 2019 Pulwama attack. The suspension formalises Pakistan’s shift toward internationalising the Kashmir issue, potentially seeking involvement from the UN, China, or the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Strategic Implications for the LoC. The suspension raises concerns about the LoC’s status. Pakistan’s non-recognition of the LoC as a de facto border could lead to increased ceasefire violations or attempts to alter the status quo, as seen in past conflicts like Kargil. However, the LoC’s international recognition and India’s military preparedness mitigate immediate tactical consequences.

Regional Stability. The suspension undermines regional stability, particularly in the context of nuclear-armed neighbours. It could escalate diplomatic and military brinkmanship, derailing prospects for dialogue. The closure of cross-border routes and trade further isolates Pakistan economically. At the same time, India’s global diplomatic offensive could weaken Pakistan’s international standing.

Legal and International Perspectives. In international law, the suspension’s impact is limited. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) sets a high bar for treaty termination due to “fundamental changes in circumstances,” and the Shimla Agreement’s “best endeavour clauses” are not strictly binding. The LoC’s status as a de facto border is unlikely to be challenged internationally, and India’s position on bilateralism remains robust. Pakistan’s move may invite criticism for violating international commitments, strengthening India’s narrative of Pakistan’s unreliability.

India’s Strategic Advantage. The suspension paradoxically benefits India by removing diplomatic constraints. India can pursue a harder line against cross-border terrorism, revisit claims over Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), and intensify diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan. The absence of the agreement may also prompt India to reassess other bilateral treaties, such as visa regimes and trade agreements, aligning them with national security interests.

Challenges and Future Prospects. The Shimla Agreement’s suspension highlights its unfulfilled potential. Deep-seated mistrust, domestic political pressures, and external influences, such as Pakistan’s alignment with China, have consistently undermined its objectives. The lack of a dispute resolution mechanism within the agreement limited its enforceability, and differing interpretations of Kashmir’s status fuelled tensions. Reviving bilateral dialogue will require confidence-building measures, such as ceasefire adherence and counter-terrorism cooperation, though the current diplomatic freeze makes this unlikely.

 

Conclusion

The Shimla Agreement of 1972 was a bold attempt to reset India-Pakistan relations after a devastating war. Its provisions for bilateralism, the LoC, and peaceful coexistence provided a framework for stability, but its implementation was hampered by mistrust and violations. While the agreement remained a diplomatic touchstone for decades, its suspension in 2025 reflects its diminished practical relevance. The repercussions, while symbolic, open the door to heightened tensions and strategic recalibrations, particularly for India. The suspension, Pakistan’s “strategic mistake”, handed India a diplomatic advantage. India can now justify retaliatory measures, such as surgical strikes or economic sanctions, without being bound by the agreement’s constraints. As South Asia navigates this crisis, the Shimla Agreement serves as both a reminder of peace’s fragility and a lesson in reconciling historical grievances.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1295
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Diplomatic Fiasco For Pakistan: Why Suspension Of 1972 Simla Agreement Is An Open Invitation To India To Seize Pak-Occupied Kashmir: OPED

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

References:-

  1. Simla Agreement, July 2, 1972. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
  1. Bhutto, Zulfikar Ali. “Simla Agreement.” Bhutto.org.
  1. “The Shimla Agreement: Background, Provisions, and Contemporary Relevance.” Sanskriti IAS, April 25, 2025.
  1. “Pakistan Suspends 1972 Simla Agreement: What Is It and What Will Be the Impact on LoC.” The Times of India, April 26, 2025.
  1. “Simla Agreement (1972) | Significance, Provisions, Impact, & Challenges.” Britannica, April 27, 2025.
  1. “Pakistan’s Suspension of Shimla Agreement: A Symbolic Move with Limited Impact.” India Sentinels, April 28, 2025.
  1. “Indus Waters Treaty, Simla Agreement ‘in Abeyance’: What This Means.” The Indian Express, April 26, 2025.
  1. “Shimla Agreement 1972 to 2025: From Peace Treaty to Breakdown.” StudyIQ, April 25, 2025.

Bibliography:-

  1. Ganguly, Sumit. Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions since 1947. Columbia University Press, 2002.
  1. Schofield, Victoria. Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War. I.B. Tauris, 2010.
  1. Snedden, Christopher. Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris. Hurst & Company, 2015.
  1. Wirsing, Robert G. India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution. St. Martin’s Press, 1994.
  1. “Simla Agreement 1972 for UPSC Exam: Know Main Points of Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan.” Jagran Josh, April 24, 2025.
  1. “What Is the Simla Agreement? Check Key Changes After Suspension.” Jagran Josh, April 25, 2025.
  1. “Explained: What Is India-Pak Simla Agreement and Why It Still Matters.” Business Standard, April 24, 2025.
  1. “Simla Agreement 1972: Why It Was Signed and What Pakistan’s Suspension Means for India.” Business Today, April 24, 2025.

Posted on

667: KASHMIR THROUGH CHINESE LENS

 

Inputs to the questions posed by the Journalist.

 

Q1. How’s the current Pahalgam crisis beneficial for the CCP’s South Asian agendas? 

The Pahalgam crisis indirectly serves the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) strategic agendas in South Asia.

Weakening India’s Regional Influence. India, entangled in Kashmir-related conflicts, limits its ability to project power in South Asia, aligning with Beijing’s goal of maintaining regional dominance.

Strengthening the China-Pakistan Alliance. China’s “all-weather” partnership with Pakistan is a cornerstone of its South Asia strategy, particularly through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The crisis reinforces Pakistan’s reliance on China, as Islamabad faces diplomatic and economic isolation from India’s retaliatory measures, like trade restrictions and treaty suspensions. China’s public support for Pakistan (evident in Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s call for a “swift and fair investigation” into the attack and backing Pakistan’s sovereignty) bolsters this alliance.

Exploiting Regional Instability. The CCP benefits from controlled instability in South Asia, as it keeps India and Pakistan preoccupied with bilateral tensions rather than challenging China’s regional projects, like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The Pahalgam crisis, by escalating border skirmishes and diplomatic hostilities, creates a volatile environment that diverts attention from China’s activities in Nepal, Bangladesh, and the Indian Ocean.

Undermining India’s Economic Narrative. The Pahalgam attack has challenged India’s narrative of stability and economic growth, particularly in Kashmir post-Article 370 revocation. This undermines India’s appeal to foreign investors, a key CCP concern given India’s role as a rival in attracting manufacturing post-U.S. tariffs on China.

Limiting U.S.-India Strategic Convergence. The crisis occurs amid U.S. distractions, with President Trump’s focus on trade wars and tariffs. By keeping India embroiled in a regional conflict, the CCP reduces the likelihood of deeper U.S.-India strategic alignment, which could counter China’s influence.

 

Q2. What’s behind China’s support for Pakistan on the Kashmir issue? Why is China supporting Pakistan’s call for an impartial probe into the April 22 attack? 

China’s support for Pakistan on the Kashmir issue stems from a mix of strategic, geopolitical, and domestic considerations that align with Beijing’s long-term regional agenda.

China’s support for Pakistan on Kashmir is not just about friendship—it’s about undermining India strategically, protecting infrastructure interests, controlling regional narratives, and securing ideological consistency on separatism and counterterrorism.

The call for an “impartial probe” is part of a larger strategy of positioning China as “neutral” while subtly backing Pakistan to complicate India’s diplomatic standing.

Strategic Alliance with Pakistan (Counterbalance to India). China and Pakistan have a decades-long strategic alliance. Beijing views Islamabad as a critical counterweight to India in South Asia.

Protection of CPEC Interests. CPEC passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, a region India claims as part of Jammu & Kashmir. India opposes this on sovereignty grounds. By backing Pakistan on Kashmir, China strengthens the legitimacy of its infrastructure investments in disputed territories. Also, any instability in Kashmir has a direct impact on the security of Chinese nationals and assets working in Pakistan-administered regions.

Diplomatic Leverage and Global Narrative Control. By supporting an “impartial probe” into the April 22 attack (in which Indian civilians were killed), China is deflecting attention from Pakistan-based terror groups, buying Islamabad diplomatic time.

 

Q3. A hidden Huawei satellite phone has surfaced in the probe into the Pehalgam attack. What does it indicate? What’s the history of Chinese equipment in the Kashmir terrorism ecosystem? 

The detection of a Huawei satellite phone near the attack site in Pahalgam’s Baisaran Valley indicates the terrorists’ use of advanced communication tactics. The phone connects to China’s satellite network, enabling secure, off-grid communication without reliance on local cellular networks. This capability allows operatives to evade Indian surveillance systems, which heavily monitor terrestrial networks.

Intelligence sources reportedly indicate the phone was active during the attack, suggesting its use for real-time coordination among attackers or with handlers across borders, possibly in Pakistan.

Encrypted Chinese messaging apps alongside the phone further point to a deliberate strategy to avoid detection, as these apps were banned in India post-2020 Galwan clash due to security concerns.

Huawei products are banned in India due to national security risks, meaning the phone was likely smuggled, possibly from Pakistan.

The phone’s connection to Tiantong-1, a Chinese state-controlled network, raises questions about whether Chinese technology is being repurposed for terrorist activities, either deliberately or through illicit markets.

Chinese equipment has periodically surfaced in J&K’s terrorism landscape, reflecting both the global proliferation of Chinese technology and targeted use by militant networks.

 

Q4. What’s China’s agenda (not policy) today on Kashmir? With Turkey and China supporting Pakistan in the current crisis, how do you gauge the emerging geopolitical situation? 

China’s current agenda on Kashmir—distinct from its official policy—is geopolitically opportunistic, destabilising in intent, and part of a broader strategy to constrain India’s rise.

It operates below the threshold of overt conflict but consistently supports Pakistan diplomatically, technologically, and in multilateral forums.

The support by both China and Turkey to Pakistan during the ongoing Pahalgam crisis indicates the emergence of a soft anti-India bloc seeking to leverage Kashmir as a pressure point.

While China’s official policy is neutrality and calls for bilateral resolution, its agenda is about instrumentalising Kashmir to box in India strategically and diplomatically.

Turkey has emerged as a loud voice on Kashmir, echoing Pakistan’s positions at the UN and OIC. Turkey’s support complements China’s involvement. This triad works to internationalise Kashmir, delegitimise Indian control, and challenge India’s secular-democratic image.

 

Q5. Was the attack timed with the development of the India-US trade deal? It diverted the whole world’s attention from Trump’s trade tariff war to Kashmir! Was it to thwart the US trade war with China? 

April 22, 2025’s timing has sparked speculation about its alignment with geopolitical developments, particularly the India-US trade deal negotiations and the escalating US-China trade war under President Donald Trump’s tariff policies.

The timing of the attack, during Vance’s visit and amid trade negotiations, suggests a possible intent to maximise disruption.

The choice of Pahalgam, a tourist destination, ensured global media coverage, potentially overshadowing trade discussions.

The attack dominated Indian and international headlines and undeniably shifted global media and diplomatic focus to Kashmir, at least temporarily. It did not “eclipse” the trade war but added a parallel crisis, particularly in South Asia, where India-Pakistan tensions dominated regional discourse.

The attack significantly diverted attention to Kashmir, particularly in India and among its partners, but it did not entirely overshadow the US-China trade war globally.

The attack aligns with China’s interest in disrupting India’s US trade alignment, but lacks evidence of direct Chinese intent. It likely served Pakistan’s goals while indirectly benefiting China’s agenda.

 

Q6. Other relevant aspects? 

Pakistan’s military and government are grappling with economic woes and political unrest, exacerbated by India’s trade restrictions and diplomatic isolation. Supporting militant proxies may be a way to deflect domestic criticism. However, this is a foolish mistake, and domestic pressures could push both nations toward miscalculation.

The crisis’s economic fallout extends beyond India and Pakistan, affecting volatile global markets. India’s trade restrictions and border closures further damage Pakistan’s already strained economy, increasing its reliance on China’s financial support.

The India-Pakistan-China nuclear dynamic raises the stakes. While restraint is being held, the crisis tests this balance.

 

Link to the article by Venus Upadhayaya on The Epoch Times (Quoted four times):-

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/chinas-footprint-is-clear-in-kashmir-crisis-analysts-say-5852309

 

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1295
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

Posted on

662:INDIA’S WATER CANNON AGAINST PAKISTAN-SPONSORED TERRORISM: INDUS WATER TREATY

 

My article was published on the “Life of Soldier” website

on 29 Apr 25.

 

 

“Blood and water cannot flow together”

– Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

 

The Indus Waters Treaty is a water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan, signed on September 19, 1960, in Karachi by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan. The World Bank brokered it and governs the use of the Indus River system, which includes six rivers: Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. The Indus River system is critical for both countries’ irrigation, hydropower, and drinking water.

India held the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance on April 23, 2025, following the Pahalgam terrorist attack that killed 26 civilians. India’s decision, citing national security concerns, grants it greater control over the western rivers, potentially impacting Pakistan’s agriculture and water supply. Pakistan condemned the move as an “act of war,” suspending the Simla Agreement and closing the Wagah border. The World Bank, a treaty signatory, has urged dialogue but lacks enforcement power. This development heightens regional instability and raises concerns about future conflicts and diplomatic relations.

 

Key Provisions

Division of Rivers. Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) are allocated to Pakistan for unrestricted use, except for limited Indian uses (e.g., domestic, non-consumptive, and specified agricultural purposes). Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) are allocated to India for unrestricted use.

Water Sharing. Pakistan receives about 80% of the Indus system’s water (around 135 million acre-feet annually), while India gets 20%.

Infrastructure. India can build run-of-the-river dams on Western Rivers for hydropower, but cannot store water beyond specified limits. Pakistan can object to designs that violate the treaty.

Permanent Indus Commission. A bilateral body with representatives from both countries meets regularly to monitor implementation, share data, and resolve disputes.

 

Context and Significance.

The treaty was necessitated by the 1947 partition, which split the Indus basin, leaving canal headworks in India and irrigated lands in Pakistan. A 1948 standoff, when India briefly cut off water to Pakistan, underscored the need for a formal agreement. It is considered one of the most successful water-sharing treaties globally, surviving three wars.

The Indus system originates in the Himalayas, with major tributaries flowing through Indian-administered Jammu, Kashmir, and Pakistani-occupied Gilgit-Baltistan, making it geopolitically sensitive. In 2016, after a terrorist attack in Uri, India reviewed the treaty. In 2022 and 2023, India issued notices to Pakistan for treaty modification, citing “fundamental changes” like cross-border terrorism and environmental challenges, but no formal revocation has occurred. In 2023, Pakistan sought arbitration over Kishanganga and Ratle, while India challenged the arbitration process, preferring Neutral Expert resolution.

Pakistan, heavily dependent on the Indus for 90% of its water needs, fears reduced flows due to Indian projects or climate change. Delays in its storage infrastructure (e.g., Diamer-Bhasha Dam) exacerbate vulnerabilities. Glacial melt, erratic monsoons, and floods (e.g., 2010, 2022) strain the treaty’s framework, which lacks provisions for climate adaptation.

 

Recent Development

India has officially held the IWT with Pakistan in abeyance, marking a significant shift in bilateral relations. This decision was announced on April 23, 2025, following a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. India invoked Article XII(3) of the IWT and sent a formal notice to Pakistan. The Ministry of Jal Shakti cited Pakistan’s alleged support for cross-border terrorism, shifting demographics, and energy demands as reasons the agreement could no longer continue “in good faith.”​

With the treaty placed in abeyance, India is no longer obligated to share information regarding water storage levels or flow in the rivers of the Indus River System with Pakistan.​ India has ceased sharing hydrological data (e.g., water flow, snowmelt, flood updates) with Pakistan, halted technical meetings, and stopped allowing Pakistani inspections of Indian projects. India is no longer bound by treaty restrictions on building storage or hydropower projects on the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab).

 

Adverse Impact on Pakistan

India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) poses significant adverse impacts on Pakistan, particularly in agriculture, water supply, energy, and economic stability.

Agriculture. Pakistan relies on the Indus River system for 80% of its irrigated agriculture, supporting 16 million hectares of farmland. The western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) allocated to Pakistan under the IWT provide 93% of its irrigation water. A 10-20% reduction in water availability could lead to significant declines in agricultural output, threatening food security and rural livelihoods. Pakistan’s agriculture sector, which employs 40% of the workforce and contributes 24% to GDP, faces severe risks. While India’s current infrastructure limits immediate large-scale water diversion, future dams or storage projects could reduce water availability, especially during critical sowing seasons (e.g., Rabi and Kharif), reduced flows could lower crop yields for wheat, rice, and cotton—key staples and export crops.

Water Scarcity in Urban Centres. Major cities like Karachi, Lahore, Multan, and Faisalabad depend on the Indus and its tributaries for drinking water and industrial use. Any reduction in river flows, even temporary, could exacerbate existing water scarcity. Pakistan already faces a per capita water availability of ~1,000 cubic meters, close to the “water scarce” threshold. Water rationing, public health crises, and industrial slowdowns could occur, particularly in Punjab and Sindh provinces, which rely heavily on the Indus.

Energy Sector. Pakistan generates significant electricity from hydropower plants like Tarbela (3,478 MW) and Mangla (1,000 MW), which rely on consistent river flows from the Indus and Jhelum. Reduced or irregular water flows could lower power generation, worsening Pakistan’s energy crisis. For example, a 10% reduction in Tarbela’s water inflow could cut its output by hundreds of megawatts, affecting millions of households.

Economic. Energy shortages could disrupt industrial production and increase reliance on costly imported fuels, straining Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves. A decline in crop production would reduce export revenues (e.g., rice and cotton) and increase food import costs, exacerbating Pakistan’s trade deficit. Reduced agricultural output could lead to job losses in rural areas, driving migration to urban centers and rising social unrest. Higher food and energy prices and potential infrastructure damage from flooding (if India releases water abruptly) could fuel inflation. Pakistan’s external debt (~$130 billion in 2025) limits its ability to fund mitigation measures. A 2023 World Bank study estimated that a 20% reduction in Indus water flows could shave 5-7% off Pakistan’s GDP over a decade.

Social and Political Fallout. Water shortages could spark protests, particularly in Sindh and Punjab, where water allocation disputes between provinces are already contentious. Provinces like Sindh, which rely on downstream flows, may accuse Punjab of hoarding water, exacerbating internal political divides.

 

India’s Justification and Legitimacy.

India’s justification and Legitimacy for holding in abeyance the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) hinges on the principle of a “fundamental change of circumstances,” as outlined in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. New Delhi argues that Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism, especially following incidents like the April 2025 Pahalgam attack, violates the underlying premise of peaceful bilateral relations that formed the basis of the IWT in 1960. India contends that a country facilitating terrorist activity cannot expect continued cooperation on vital issues like water sharing. While the IWT lacks a unilateral withdrawal clause, India maintains that suspension, not withdrawal, can be a legitimate, proportionate response to persistent security threats.

 

Diplomatic and Legal Aspects

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called the suspension an “act of war” and announced retaliatory measures, including suspending the 1972 Simla Agreement and closing the Wagah border.

Pakistan may seek World Bank mediation or international arbitration. The IWT lacks a unilateral exit clause, and India’s suspension may not be easily challenged under international law if framed as a response to terrorism (per Article 62, Vienna Convention). Experts argue India’s suspension is permissible under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, citing a “fundamental change of circumstances” due to Pakistan’s alleged terrorism support for terrorism. The World Bank, a treaty signatory, has urged dialogue but cannot enforce compliance.

Pakistan may seek neutral expert mediation or arbitration, but India’s refusal to cooperate could render these mechanisms ineffective. Escalating the issue to the UN or other forums may gain Pakistan sympathy but will unlikely force India to reverse the suspension.

 

The Only Way out for Pakistan.

The only viable way for Pakistan to restore the Indus Waters Treaty is through diplomatic engagement coupled with tangible actions to address India’s core security concerns, particularly those related to cross-border terrorism. India’s decision, justified under the “fundamental change of circumstances” clause in international law, is rooted in accusations of Pakistan’s support for militant activities. Therefore, Pakistan would need to:-

  • Stop escalatory rhetoric (including regular and brash nuclear sabre rattling) and retaliatory actions, as these would only harden India’s stance.
  • Demonstrate a verifiable crackdown on terror infrastructure operating from its territory, especially groups targeting India.
  • Offer security guarantees and confidence-building measures that acknowledge India’s national security concerns to rebuild trust and initiate fresh dialogue.

Ultimately, Pakistan’s path to treaty restoration lies not just in legal appeals but in restructuring the political and security context in which the treaty was suspended. Only by addressing the root causes—especially terrorism—can the IWT be revived in a stable, sustainable way.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1295
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the article on the website:-

https://www.lifeofsoldiers.com/2025/04/29/indias-water-cannon-against-pakistan-sponsored-terrorism-indus-water-treaty/

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

References:-

  1. Financial Times. “Undermining the Indus Waters Treaty imperils Indian security.” April 26, 2025.
  1. Reuters. “India suspends Indus Waters Treaty after Pahalgam terror attack.” April 23, 2025.
  1. Al Jazeera. “Pakistan calls Indus Treaty suspension ‘an act of war’.” April 24, 2025.
  1. The Hindu. “India halts hydrological data sharing with Pakistan under Indus Treaty.” April 25, 2025.
  1. BBC. “Water Wars? India wields Indus Treaty amid rising tensions with Pakistan.” April 27, 2025.
  1. Dawn. “Pakistan to seek World Bank mediation on Indus Treaty row with India.” April 28, 2025.
  1. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). Indus Treaty as a Strategic Lever: Implications for India’s National Security. Issue Brief, 2023.
  1. Rajagopalan, Rajeswari Pillai. India’s Water Diplomacy: Reclaiming the Strategic Narrative. Observer Research Foundation, 2023.
  1. Observer Research Foundation (ORF). India’s Options under the Indus Waters Treaty: A Strategic Overview. 2022.
  1. United States Institute of Peace (USIP). Resolving India-Pakistan Water Disputes: A Legal and Strategic Perspective. 2020.
  1. International Crisis Group. Water Pressure: Climate Risk and Security in Pakistan. ICG Asia Report No. 297, 2018.
  1. World Bank. Indus Waters Treaty and Current Status of Disputes. [World Bank Briefing Note, 2023].
  1. Wirsing, Robert G. The Indus Waters Treaty: Political Stability and Water Security in South Asia. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, 2013.
  1. Salman, Salman M.A. The Indus Waters Treaty: A History of a Treaty that has Survived Wars and Disputes. Water International, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2011.
English हिंदी