Pakistan’s military has long considered sponsoring terrorism a low-cost strategy without facing consequences. However, India’s decision to suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty after a terror attack has altered this dynamic. Dimitra Staikou, a legal expert, highlighted the interconnectedness of water and terrorism, emphasizing that the treaty’s suspension sends a significant message.
Staikou explained that India’s action aligns with international law principles, citing the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The changing hydrological and geopolitical landscapes, coupled with Pakistan’s reluctance to negotiate treaty modifications, have led to this strategic move. By suspending rather than terminating the treaty, India aims to rebalance rights and obligations while leaving room for future renegotiation.
India’s stance on the treaty suspension is seen as a legitimate exercise of sovereign rights, not a breach of international commitments. Staikou emphasized that water is no longer a guaranteed entitlement but a variable that can incentivize compliance or penalize destabilizing actions. She rejected Pakistan’s portrayal of the suspension as an act of war, highlighting the missed opportunities for bilateral engagement on treaty reform.
The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty serves a dual purpose: imposing costs on Pakistan’s support for terror groups and creating space for a more relevant agreement. This move aims to align future agreements with current demographic, environmental, and strategic realities, challenging Pakistan’s reliance on groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad.
