By S.M. Inam
An influential American journal rarely devotes sustained attention to south Asian water politics, let alone takes a position that aligns so clearly with Pakistan’s long-standing concerns. That is what makes the National Interest’s intervention on the Indus Waters Treaty both striking and consequential. Its warning that India’s actions could trigger a humanitarian crisis across south Asia forces an uncomfortable issue into the international spotlight: water, once a shared necessity governed by law, is being recast as a weapon of state policy. For more than six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty has survived wars, crises and diplomatic breakdowns between India and Pakistan. Brokered by the World Bank in 1960, it has often been described as one of the most successful water-sharing agreements in the world.
Even at moments of open hostility, the treaty functioned as a stabilizing backstop, insulating the livelihoods of millions from the vagaries of geopolitics. Its endurance was not accidental. It rested on the recognition that rivers cannot be managed through coercion without courting disaster. India’s decision to place the treaty in abeyance marks a sharp departure from that logic. As the National Interest argues, this is not a technical dispute over engineering details or arbitration clauses. It is a fundamental rupture of a framework designed to prevent precisely this kind of escalation. By suspending treaty obligations and halting the sharing of hydrological data, New Delhi has pushed regional water politics into dangerous territory where mistrust, uncertainty and fear now dominate.
The journal’s focus on the Dalhasti Stage II project highlights a deeper concern. This is not an isolated case, but part of a broader pattern in which infrastructure development is pursued without regard for agreed limits or downstream consequences. In a region already acutely vulnerable to climate change, erratic monsoons and glacial melt, such unilateral actions carry enormous risks. Water scarcity does not remain confined within borders. It spreads, destabilizing agriculture, food security and social cohesion. International law, on this point, is not ambiguous. The court of arbitration has made it clear that India has no legal authority to unilaterally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. Treaties are not optional arrangements that can be set aside at moments of political convenience.
Yet, as the National Interest notes, New Delhi has treated legal rulings less as binding obligations and more as obstacles to be circumvented. The suspension of data sharing, a core confidence-building measure, represents a particularly serious breach. Without reliable information on river flows, downstream planning becomes guesswork, and miscalculation becomes inevitable. What gives the journal’s argument added weight is its framing of India’s actions as part of a wider security posture. It accuses New Delhi of routinely undermining Pakistan through a combination of false flag operations and what it terms water aggression. This language is strong, but it reflects a growing perception that India increasingly views asymmetrical pressure as a legitimate tool of statecraft.
Water, in this context, becomes a means of exerting leverage over a neighbor whose economy and food system are heavily dependent on the Indus basin. The reference to the 2025 Pahalgam incident is telling. According to the journal, India used the episode as a pretext to suspend the treaty and escalate against Pakistan. Islamabad’s response on 10 May, which the magazine describes as decisive, forced a rapid recalibration. Faced with the risk of wider conflict, India turned to Washington to broker a ceasefire. That ceasefire was secured. The treaty, however, remained suspended. This selective de-escalation reveals a troubling hierarchy of priorities. Military confrontation was deemed too costly, but water coercion was allowed to persist.
In effect, the most existential issue for millions of civilians was left unresolved. The National Interest’s critique of the United States is therefore particularly pointed. Washington was willing to intervene to prevent immediate conflict, but unwilling to apply pressure on an ally to restore a treaty that underpins regional stability. The implications of this inconsistency are profound. When global powers enforce ceasefires but ignore structural violations of international agreements, they send a clear message: some forms of aggression will be tolerated if they align with geopolitical preferences. For south Asia, this sets a dangerous precedent. It normalizes the idea that control over vital resources can be manipulated without consequence, provided it falls short of open warfare.
(The writer is a former government officer and a senior analyst on national and international affairs, can be reached at inam@metro-morning.com)
