The Indus Basin feeds Pakistan. Agriculture relies on its flows. Approximately 80 percent of the arable land depends on irrigation associated with the Indus system. Over 240 million citizens rely on an uninterrupted water supply. Any disruption has national implications.
The Indus Waters Treaty is considered one of the longest-standing water-sharing agreements in the region. In 1960, the World Bank mediated the treaty, which then came into force. The agreement allocates the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—to Pakistan, while India is granted rights to the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. The structure rests on clear technical rules, and the system survived the wars of 1965, 1971, and 1999.
In April last year, India announced it would hold the treaty in abeyance after an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir killed 26 tourists. New Delhi blamed Pakistan; Islamabad rejected the charge. A four-day military exchange followed in May, after which the United States brokered a ceasefire. Tensions continue.
Pakistan took the matter to the United Nations. Annalena Baerbock had an unexpected meeting with Yousaf Raza Gilani during an Inter-Parliamentary Union hearing. Gilani labeled India’s action a breach of the treaty and of international law. He warned of the consequences for 240 million Pakistanis and emphasized climate distress and water deficiency.
The concern is reflected in water data. Pakistan stores water equivalent to roughly 30 days of need, while the global average exceeds 120 days. Per capita water availability in Pakistan has fallen to less than 1,000 cubic meters, compared to more than 5,000 cubic meters in earlier decades. The country now experiences structural scarcity. Melting Himalayan glaciers increase variability in river flows. In 2022, floods covered one-third of the country, while drought cycles have intensified in Sindh and Balochistan.
Indian upstream projects add further friction. Pakistan has raised objections to designs such as the Kishanganga project. Disputes have moved through neutral-expert and arbitration channels under the treaty framework, demonstrating that the agreement contains mechanisms for resolution. Suspension bypasses those mechanisms.
Security officials in Islamabad frame water as a core national interest. Retired diplomats point to the treaty’s dispute-settlement clauses, while legal experts cite Article XII, which sets procedures for modification. They argue that unilateral suspension lacks a basis under the treaty text. Climate researchers warn that politicizing river flows during an era of glacial retreat heightens risks for both states.
Economic stakes run deep. Agriculture contributes approximately 23 percent of GDP and employs more than one-third of the labor force. The canal colonies in Punjab rely on regular discharges from the western rivers. Electricity is also critical, particularly from hydropower projects such as Tarbela. Energy shortages raise production costs and fuel inflation.
Social stability is closely tied to rural water access. Crop failures drive migration to cities, and urban centers already strain under housing and employment pressures. Water uncertainty feeds public anxiety, requiring state institutions to manage expectations through facts and planning.
Pakistan’s diplomatic strategy centers on multilateral forums. Officials seek reaffirmation of treaty obligations at the United Nations and engage the World Bank as a guarantor while stressing legal continuity. Military leadership signals readiness to defend vital interests while supporting diplomatic routes. Civil and military positions align on treaty preservation.
Experts propose parallel tracks: first, revive Permanent Indus Commission meetings without delay; second, fast-track arbitration where technical disputes persist; third, increase basin-level data sharing to reduce mistrust; and fourth, invest in domestic storage projects such as the Diamer-Bhasha and Mohmand dams to increase buffer capacity. Funding gaps remain, but solutions exist through phased financing and public-private collaboration.
Regional analysts note that both states benefit from stability. The treaty provides predictability within a nuclearized environment, while climate volatility increases shared risks. Formal dialogue reduces the possibility of escalation.
The treaty’s viability ultimately depends on political will. Continuity is widely supported by international actors. The World Bank maintains an official role, and the United Nations provides diplomatic space. Pakistan’s case draws strength from the treaty text and a history of compliance. Long-term engagement, legal certainty, and infrastructure investment will shape the path forward.
