For the first time, Pakistan expresses willingness to discuss terms of the Indus Waters Treaty

After the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, India notified Pakistan that it was placing the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance with immediate effect. This was a significant move in response to persistent cross-border terrorism allegedly supported by Pakistan, which India said directly hindered its ability to fully utilize the treaty’s provisions. For the first time since India’s suspension of the treaty, Pakistan has signaled its willingness to discuss India’s concerns over the IWT.

Pakistan’s Water Resources Secretary, Syed Ali Murtaza, recently responded to India’s formal communication regarding the abeyance decision. Representing his government, Murtaza offered to discuss specific objections raised by India, although he questioned the validity of suspending the treaty since it contains no exit clause. This openness to dialogue marks a change, as Pakistan had not explicitly expressed such willingness in previous notices issued by India in January 2023 and September 2024 requesting a review and modification of the treaty.

The decision to suspend the treaty followed an escalation of hostilities, including military confrontations, which have since paused after India launched Operation Sindoor—a counter-strike targeting terror sites in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan itself. On May 10, both countries agreed to cease all military actions by land, air, and sea. However, India remains firm on diplomatic pressure measures, including maintaining the suspension of the IWT.

India’s concerns include Pakistan’s alleged use of water resources as a political tool, preventing India from building dams and reservoirs for water storage and hydroelectric power generation. Islamabad’s engagement is perceived as an attempt to stall these Indian infrastructure projects, which could alter the status quo of water sharing.

The diplomatic exchange intensified after Debashree Mukherjee, India’s Water Resources Secretary, sent a letter to her Pakistani counterpart two days after the Pahalgam attack. Mukherjee emphasized that honoring treaties in good faith is fundamental but accused Pakistan of sustained cross-border terrorism targeting Jammu and Kashmir. She stated that this security uncertainty obstructed India’s full rights under the treaty and that Pakistan’s refusal to negotiate as per treaty provisions constituted a breach. Consequently, India decided to hold the treaty in abeyance immediately.

MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal reiterated India’s stance, stating that the IWT was signed in the spirit of goodwill and friendship. He added that the treaty will remain suspended until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably ceases support for cross-border terrorism. He also noted that climate change, demographic shifts, and technological developments have created new ground realities, which further justify a re-examination of the treaty.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi reinforced this message, stating that “water and blood cannot flow together,” signaling India’s commitment to keeping the treaty suspended while terrorism persists. India insists that any negotiations for treaty modifications be strictly bilateral, excluding third-party mediation such as from the World Bank, which had played a role in the original treaty.

One major point India wants to address is the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism. Presently, India, Pakistan, and the World Bank have different interpretations of how disputes should be resolved. India favors a clearer, graded resolution process rather than having parallel forums—a court of arbitration and a neutral expert—hear the same issue, as was the case with the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects.

The IWT, signed on September 19, 1960, after nine years of negotiation, contains 12 Articles and eight Annexures (A to H). Under the treaty, India has unrestricted use of the “Eastern Rivers” (Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi), while Pakistan receives water from the “Western Rivers” (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab). The ongoing dispute reflects broader geopolitical tensions but also highlights the critical importance of water sharing between the two countries.