Transboundary water governance is one of the most intractable dilemmas in international relations, especially in areas where hostility has persisted over time and where the natural and political environments are delicate. The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is the clearest example of this dilemma. Brokered by the World Bank, the treaty was signed by India and Pakistan on 19 September 1960. It divided the waters of the Indus River basin—a lifeline for South Asian agriculture, energy production, and livelihoods—in the turbulent aftermath of the 1947 Partition [1]. The treaty assigned about 80 per cent of the basin’s flows to Pakistan through exclusive rights over the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab). The eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) went to India. The treaty also created the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) and a graduated dispute-resolution procedure to encourage technical cooperation. It has endured wars, territorial conflicts, and infrastructure problems over the past six decades, including arbitrated negotiations over the Baglihar (2007) and Kishanganga (2013) projects, thereby highlighting the importance of cooperation despite an otherwise hostile bilateral relationship
Indus Waters Treaty in the public discourse: Politics, media, and academia
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has long been an emblem of robust transboundary water cooperation between India and Pakistan.
This is an open-access article written by Nidhi Nagabhatla and Neeraj Singh Manhas.
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960 in the aftermath of Partition, has long been an emblem of robust transboundary water cooperation between India and Pakistan. It survived wars and recurring conflict through its well-organised allocation of the Indus River system. In April 2025, however, India placed the treaty “in abeyance” following a fatal terrorist attack in Pahalgam. The IWT is therefore no longer a purely technical accord. It has become a source of geopolitical bargaining power, national identity, and rhetorical securitisation. This essay explores the treaty’s image in the public imagination through academic commentary, political discourse, and media reporting, including critical voices within Pakistan that question the treaty’s equity and long-term sustainability. It traces a transition from stability to apparent vulnerability under the combined pressures of climate change, population growth, and mounting bilateral tension. The analysis identifies points of convergence, such as the treaty’s underused ecological and adaptive governance provisions, and points of divergence, such as competing framings of “water terrorism” and strategic necessity. A dedicated section asks whether the treaty’s fixed allocations can survive climate change. The essay closes with three targeted recommendations and examines whether the IWT can move beyond coercion to help create common regional futures.
Related content
Event
