India Maintains Pressure on Pakistan: Indus Waters Treaty and Other Measures to Stay in Effect New Delhi continues strategic posture amid heightened regional tensions

India Maintains Pressure on Pakistan: Indus Waters Treaty and Other Measures to Stay in Effect

New Delhi continues strategic posture amid heightened regional tensions

In a firm stance reflecting sustained diplomatic pressure, the Government of India has announced that it will not roll back punitive measures imposed on Pakistan, including actions related to the Indus Waters Treaty. This decision underscores India’s continuing concerns over cross-border terrorism, regional instability, and what officials describe as Islamabad’s insufficient action against terror networks operating from its soil.

The announcement comes amid a broader review of bilateral relations, with Indian policymakers signaling a hardened approach in response to recent developments along the Line of Control (LoC) and persistent security threats.

The Indus Waters Treaty: A Pillar of Regional Water Sharing

Signed in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is considered one of the most successful international water-sharing agreements. It governs the distribution of the Indus River system between India and Pakistan. Under the treaty, India received control of the three eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — while Pakistan was granted control over the three western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.

For decades, the IWT functioned as a symbol of cooperation even during periods of intense hostility between the two neighbors, including wars in 1965, 1971, and the Kargil conflict in 1999. Despite multiple provocations and border clashes, India refrained from using water as a tool of leverage. However, recent developments suggest a shift in that doctrine.

India’s Recalibrated Policy on the Indus Waters Treaty

Following the Pulwama terror attack in February 2019, which claimed the lives of 40 Indian paramilitary personnel, India began reassessing its engagement under the IWT. While India has not abrogated the treaty — an act that would require significant international scrutiny and could be viewed as a violation of international law — it has moved to maximize its legal rights under the agreement.

In practice, this involves expediting projects like the Shahpur Kandi dam in Punjab and the Ujh multipurpose project in Jammu and Kashmir. These projects aim to fully utilize the waters of the eastern rivers allocated to India, thereby reducing the flow into Pakistan — a legal maneuver that remains within the bounds of the treaty.

Officials in India maintain that this approach is in response to Pakistan’s repeated failure to crack down on groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which are accused of orchestrating attacks against Indian interests.

Broader Punitive Measures Beyond Water

In addition to water-related actions, India has sustained other punitive measures against Pakistan. These include the revocation of Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status, increased surveillance at the border, and intensified diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan on global platforms.

The MFN status, granted under World Trade Organization (WTO) norms, was withdrawn immediately following the 2019 Pulwama attack. This revocation allowed India to impose higher tariffs on imports from Pakistan, severely impacting the limited trade that existed between the two countries.

Moreover, India has taken an aggressive stance in international fora such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global watchdog for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. Indian diplomats have consistently lobbied for Pakistan’s inclusion on the FATF grey list, citing insufficient enforcement against financing of terrorism.

Diplomatic and Security Context

India’s policy toward Pakistan has been shaped by a series of provocations and attacks attributed to Pakistan-based militant groups. Notable among these were the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and more recently, the 2016 Uri attack and the 2019 Pulwama bombing.

Each of these incidents significantly strained relations and prompted calls within India for a more assertive response. The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has responded with a mix of diplomatic offensives and military countermeasures, including surgical strikes across the LoC and airstrikes in Balakot.

These actions reflect a departure from earlier strategies, where engagement and dialogue were often pursued despite setbacks. Now, the emphasis appears to be on deterrence and strategic assertiveness.

Regional Implications and International Reaction

The decision to maintain punitive measures, particularly those related to water and trade, has drawn mixed reactions internationally. While some countries have expressed concern over the long-term implications for regional peace and water security, others have recognized India’s right to act within the legal frameworks of international agreements.

Experts in international law note that India’s current actions under the Indus Waters Treaty do not constitute a violation, provided they do not obstruct Pakistan’s rights to the western rivers. However, tensions could rise if future projects lead to significant diversions or storage that impact downstream flows.

China, a strategic ally of Pakistan and a key player in the region, has largely remained neutral on the IWT but continues to monitor developments closely, particularly in light of its own interests in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)

Pakistan’s Response and Domestic Challenges

Pakistan, on its part, has condemned India’s actions and accused it of weaponizing water. Pakistani officials have appealed to the World Bank and other international bodies to intervene, although the World Bank has taken a largely procedural role in treaty disputes.

Domestically, Pakistan faces its own set of challenges — economic instability, political unrest, and mounting public pressure over governance and inflation. These internal issues have complicated Islamabad’s ability to effectively respond to Indian measures, especially in the absence of robust international support.

Furthermore, Pakistan’s diminished standing in global counterterrorism forums has weakened its diplomatic leverage. The country narrowly avoided being placed on the FATF blacklist in recent years, a move that could have triggered severe financial sanctions.—

The Road Ahead: Dialogue or Deadlock?

While both nations have maintained backchannel communications at various times, formal dialogue remains suspended. India has consistently maintained that talks cannot proceed until Pakistan takes concrete and verifiable action against terrorism.

Observers note that despite the continued punitive measures, neither side appears willing to push the boundaries toward a complete breakdown of the treaty. For India, the IWT offers a framework to assert its rights without crossing international legal lines. For Pakistan, the treaty remains a critical lifeline for water security, particularly in the agriculture-dependent Punjab province.

Given the stakes, any future recalibration of the Indus Waters Treaty or other punitive measures will likely depend on geopolitical shifts, domestic political will, and international mediation — none of which appear imminent.—

Conclusion

India’s decision to maintain the status quo on punitive actions against Pakistan, including those related to the Indus Waters Treaty, signals a continued policy of strategic pressure. While these actions are grounded in legal frameworks and long-standing grievances, they represent a broader recalibration of India’s approach to regional security and diplomacy.

As the region grapples with evolving challenges, including climate stress, economic uncertainty, and shifting alliances, the future of Indo-Pak relations will hinge on both nations’ ability to balance national interests with the imperative of stability. Until then, the cur

rent measures are set to remain a fixture in South Asia’s complex geopolitical landscape.