The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960 under World Bank mediation, has long been hailed as a rare beacon of cooperation between India and Pakistan. For over six decades, it survived three wars and relentless geopolitical tensions.
Yet, in April 2025, following the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians, India suspended the treaty unilaterally, declaring it would be held "in abeyance" until, as New Delhi said, “Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism."
This unprecedented move has thrust Kashmir's rivers and Kashmir dispute into the spotlight, transforming water from a shared resource into a potential weapon. With 220 million Pakistanis dependent on the Indus for survival, the stakes are existential.
Meanwhile, China, an upstream power controlling the Tibetan headwaters of the Indus and Brahmaputra, watches warily, navigating its own hydro-policy, which India treats with concern, while Beijing advocates for glacial preservation for the last four years or so.
The crisis underscores the urgent need for sustainable peace-building, including proposals like transforming the Siachen Glacier into a high-altitude ecological peace park and centering Kashmiri-led and Kashmiri owned peace processes. These approaches could blend hydrological necessity with conflict resolutions in one of the world's most volatile regions.
A Colonial Legacy Under Strain
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was less a cooperative framework and more a partition of the Indus Basin's six rivers. India got major rights over the waters from three rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej), while Pakistan got the major rights from three river waters (Indus, Chenab, Jhelum), amounting to 80% of the basin's water.
However, India, as the upper riparian, retained strategic control, even though the Kashmir dispute was not getting resolved at the date of agreement between India and Pakistan. The treaty's rigidity, frozen in 1960s geopolitics, failed to account for climate change, population growth of Lower Riparian or modern infrastructure needs of Jammu and Kashmir, a high voltage conflict zone.
The Pahalgam attack marked a turning point. India's decision to freeze the IWT represents the first explicit weaponisation of water in the region. While India lacks the infrastructure to fully block flows immediately, it can halt data-sharing, depriving Pakistan of critical flood warnings. It can also accelerate dam projects on the Chenab and Jhelum, altering seasonal flows, and manipulate reservoir releases to disrupt Pakistan's agriculture.
Pakistan, already water-stressed, faces existential threats. Ninety percent of its agriculture depends on the Indus, and its reservoirs store only 10% of annual flows. Pakistan's Foreign Minister termed India's move an "act of war," while experts warned of nuclear brinkmanship.
Glaciers, Water, and Survival
Kashmir is not just a territorial dispute but the "water tower or the blue crystals of South Asia," feeding the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. The Himalayan Belt has a total of 15,000 glaciers out of which Jammu and Kashmir region claims approximately 3,136 glaciers on both sides of the Line of Control. These glaciers are melting at alarming rates due to climate change and militarisation. Their preservation is critical for regional water security, yet political tensions have hindered collaborative conservation efforts.
The IWT's Article XII Clause 3 allows for amendments, but only through mutual consent of India and Pakistan or involving World Bank mediation, if disagreement arises. India's 2023 invocation of this clause to propose modifications, citing climate change and development needs, highlighted the treaty's outdated framework. However, unilateral suspension violates this spirit, risking legal and ecological chaos.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir, the primary stakeholders in these waters, have been excluded from decision-making. A participatory role for local communities is essential for climate justice, including integrating indigenous knowledge into water governance, demanding climate compensation for glacial loss, and ensuring equitable access to water resources across the LoC.
Water, Warfare, and the Nuclear Triangle
China, though not part of the IWT, controls the Indus and Brahmaputra headwaters in Tibet. Its dam-building projects, such as the Medog Dam, threaten downstream flows to India, creating a "nuclear triangle" of water insecurity. Beijing's emphasis on glacial preservation for the last four years or so contrasts with its actions, complicating regional trust according to India's perspective.
Military escalations have evolved from the 2016 surgical strikes to the 2019 Balakot airstrike and 2025 Operation Sindoor, marking shifts toward pre-emptive strikes. Post-Pahalgam, India putting IWT in abeyance has escalated tensions, with Pakistan warning of "full-force" retaliation.
From Conflict to Conservation
Global climate activists highlight the accelerating melting of ice across the planet, including glaciers, emphasising that this melting is occurring at a rate aligned with the worst-case scenarios of climate change models.
The Siachen Glacier, the world's highest battlefield, is melting rapidly due to military activity. Converting it into an Ecological Peace Park could serve as a neutral zone for climate research, facilitate joint India-Pakistan-China monitoring, and demilitarise the region, saving lives and ecosystems.
A Kashmiri-led, Kashmiri-owned peace process could localise water governance, reducing Indo-Pakistani brinkmanship. It could integrate climate adaptation such as shared glacial melt data and promote cross-border hydropower projects as confidence-building measures.
The Indus crisis is a watershed moment. India's suspension of the IWT has upended 65 years of uneasy stability, but it also presents an opportunity for reimagining peace. The path forward must balance hydrological realism by accepting shared dependence on rivers, ecological imperatives by preserving glaciers and reducing pollution, and human security with 220 million lives hanging in the balance.
As experts warn, "Water wars are not inevitable—but neither is peace automatic." The choice lies between continued brinkmanship or a Kashmiri-led process that treats water not as a weapon, but as a bridge to coexistence.
The glaciers are melting, the bombs are primed, but somewhere in Kashmir's rivers, there is still hope for conflict resolution of the dispute through a process of sustainable composite dialogue.
China and US Mediation
China's Belt and Road Initiative engages Pakistan via CPEC. If Beijing shifts to active mediation, it could broker a revised IWT with climate provisions, fund trans-boundary water grids to reduce scarcity tensions, and push for Siachen demilitarisation, aligning with its "ecological civilisation" through 123 agreement.
US President Donald Trump has reaffirmed his commitment to ending the "generational war" between India and Pakistan, offering to mediate the Kashmir dispute following a recent ceasefire. The US State Department emphasised Trump's unique ability to resolve long-standing conflicts, citing his track record of bringing adversaries to the table.
While Pakistan welcomed the initiative, India maintained its stance against third-party mediation.
Trump's efforts aim to transform the fragile truce into lasting peace, leveraging diplomatic engagement and trade incentives. The White House hopes this breakthrough will pave the way for sustained dialogue and regional stability.
Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, General Syed Asim Munir, was invited by the United States to attend the 250th anniversary of the US Army on June 14, the same day as US President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, to which India has shown strong resentment including its lobbies in Washington.
The BJP-led government in Delhi has focused on domestic politics, ignoring the external dimensions of its country, and has landed India in a grave problem, signalling opaque foreign policy since the matrix is exclusively anti-Islamabad.
Vision for Peace
A peaceful resolution to the Kashmir conflict could transform India-Pakistan relations, replacing decades of hostility with trust and cooperation. By addressing the issue through dialogue and mutual understanding, both nations can foster empathy, harmony, and shared prosperity. Kashmir, instead of being a flashpoint, could become a bridge uniting people through trade, culture, and collaborative development.
Economic corridors, joint infrastructure projects, and cultural exchanges could flourish, lifting millions out of poverty. With reduced military spending, both countries could redirect resources toward education, healthcare, and innovation, ushering in a new era of progress. A stable Kashmir would also strengthen regional security, attracting global investments.
Beyond geopolitics, reconciliation would heal generations of trauma, allowing Kashmiris to thrive. People-to-people connections through opening all traditional routes could rekindle bonds severed by conflict. Ultimately, a just Kashmir solution would prove that even the deepest divides can be overcome not through force, but with compassion and vision for a shared future.
Have you liked the news article?