In contrast, New Delhi has never used such a language against Pakistan, a rival that has constantly carried out sub-conventional warfare and imposed three wars on India.

Pakistan has reacted strongly to India’s decision to put the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in abeyance in May 2025. More importantly, New Delhi has retained its position, which Pakistan seems not to have expected.

The rulers in Pakistan might have thought that the decision taken by New Delhi would be temporary and meant to cool down the public anger over the Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 innocent civilians were gunned down by Pakistan-backed terrorists in April 2025.

India’s position and its strong defence of putting the treaty in abeyance have given a clear message to Islamabad that the IWT was no longer inviolable. India has not only defended its decision strongly but has also offered a legal basis for its decision. In this way, New Delhi has got on the nerves of the military establishment in Pakistan.

The point is not what the rulers and several commentators say about India’s decision; the real issue is what they can do about it. Not much, to be clear.

It is a well-established international practice that the upper riparian states need to be mindful of the needs of the lower riparian states. And India has been overly conscious and considerate about that. Otherwise, besides signing the treaty and allowing Pakistan to use the majority of the waters of the western three rivers—the Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum—New Delhi never thought of using the treaty to react to Pakistan’s three unprovocative wars that it imposed on India.

Pakistan has no locus standi to challenge India’s decision. One point that the rulers in Pakistan and several commentators make to question India’s position is the legality of India’s decision to put the IWT in abeyance. First and foremost, there is no precedent and no legal binding that a treaty or agreement is eternal. If that had been the case, there would not have been amendments or clauses in agreements meant to address issues that pop up from time to time. More importantly, what if the situation and the circumstances change? If a treaty favours one signatory at the cost of the other, would that be fair to the essence of an agreement? Of course not.

Furthermore, Pakistan should be thankful that New Delhi has not taken an irrational and reckless position. Like in Pakistan, the provinces are ready to adopt punitive water policies to deprive each other of water. Punjab is accused of using the waters of the Indus River and depriving Balochistan and Sindh of their share. These two provinces are up against Punjab for the latter’s decision to divert water to irrigate barren land, affecting the lower riparian areas.

To quote Chief Minister of Punjab Maryam Nawaz, “If Punjab wants to construct canals for its water, why are you bothered? It is Punjab’s water. It belongs to the people, farmers and fields of Punjab.” Maryam Nawaz is just the chief minister of a province of Pakistan. Still, she minces no words in underlining the reality that Punjab, since it is the most powerful province of the country, can overlook the concerns and reservations of the weak and lower riparian provinces.

In contrast, New Delhi has never used such a language against Pakistan, a rival that has constantly carried out sub-conventional warfare and imposed three wars on India. In fact, India has been considerate about the implications of such a decision and its generosity towards the common people of Pakistan, despite the hostile policy of the country’s military establishment, is well known. Not only did it not disrupt the flow of the water towards Pakistan, but it also diplomatically raised its concerns about the changing circumstances of the IWT and the need for its renegotiation.

That should be enough to refute the claim of Islamabad that the water was being “weaponised”. Had that been the policy, New Delhi could have done that a long time ago. The point is that the behaviour of the military establishment remains detrimental towards India’s security. And having made all sincere efforts to convince Islamabad to refrain from pursuing such a policy, the only option was to remind Islamabad of its vulnerability.

Notwithstanding the hollow claims of several leaders in Pakistan, war is and will be devastating for the country. The rulers in Pakistan may claim that it has nothing to lose, but India is focused on development and progress. It doesn’t want to be dragged into a war, although it can easily win one by making Pakistan pay a heavy price, but a lot of resources will be consumed by such an action.

For Pakistan, on the other hand, conflict and wars have sustained the military establishment in the country. Since the brief conflict in May 2025, the country’s military has overly dominated the country’s domestic and foreign policy. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has been reduced to an honorary position, standing behind Field Marshal Asim Munir to nod his head to the latter’s decisions. Sad, but reality.

Be that as it may. The reality is that New Delhi has made it clear that Pakistan cannot claim normalcy on one front and remain involved in anti-India subversive activities on the other. If internally Punjab can make a claim over the waters that flow through it to the lower areas of Pakistan, why can New Delhi not explore the option of putting the IWT in abeyance to build pressure on Pakistan to take concrete measures against its sponsored groups that have been active in threatening India’s security?

If the military establishment believes that India cannot do that, then it is living in a fool’s paradise. India has options to force Pakistan to revisit its policy of sponsoring anti-India terrorist groups. New Delhi still prefers diplomatic ways to send a message across the border.

The decision to put the IWT in abeyance is a step towards achieving that goal. And India is fully entitled to abrogate the treaty if Pakistan doesn’t revisit its behaviour or refuses to acknowledge India’s concerns.

If history has anything to teach us, Pakistan is known for making misguided policy decisions. Often, such short-sighted policies have backfired. Whether it’s support to the Islamist radicals like Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) or the Afghan Taliban, to mention just two. Its support for the TTP has led to military confrontations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the situation remains tense, which potentially can deteriorate if better sense does not prevail.

Pakistan is in no position to claim having the upper hand, whether militarily, diplomatically or legally, to challenge India’s decision on the IWT. All it can do is carry out sub-conventional warfare that, in turn, can provide New Delhi with a strong casus belli((a Latin term meaning “cause for war” or “justification for war). Where will that end? Islamabad should know that better. In no way can it inflict harm on India that can be compared to the potential damage that India can unleash on Pakistan.

On the issue of IWT, Pakistan has no case, no clout. It, therefore, is wise and sensible for the country to behave as a responsible state and stop supporting anti-India terrorist groups. That would help it save a lot of money for development. The rulers of Pakistan have the responsibility to act sensibly and in the interests of the people of their country.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.