Indus Waters Treaty: Why India wants to renegotiate the pact with Pakistan
India has repeatedly sought a formal renegotiation and modification of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), 1960, sending notices to Pakistan through the Permanent Indus Commission, including a formal notice dated 25 January 2023
The treaty was placed "in abeyance" from April 2025 following a cross-border terror attack, marking the first time political-security tensions have been used to disrupt the treaty's functioning
Official statements in mid-2026 confirmed the treaty remains in abeyance, conditioned on Pakistan credibly and irreversibly ending cross-border terrorism
Parallel disputes continue over the design of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, currently before both a Neutral Expert and a Pakistan-initiated Court of Arbitration — a rare instance of two competing dispute-resolution tracks running on the same questions
Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 — Structure and River Allocation
The IWT was signed on 19 September 1960 in Karachi, brokered by the World Bank, allocating the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan and the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India, with limited non-consumptive, run-of-the-river uses permitted to India on the western rivers.
Key Details
- India retains rights to use western river waters for irrigation, domestic use, and non-consumptive purposes like hydropower under specified design constraints (Annexure D and E)
- The treaty has no exit or termination clause of its own — it is meant to continue indefinitely unless both parties agree to modify or terminate it
- India has cited the treaty's Preamble commitment to "goodwill and friendship" as undermined by cross-border terrorism as grounds for keeping it in abeyance
India's renegotiation demand centers on updating a 1960 framework that did not anticipate climate change, population growth, or sustained cross-border terrorism, and on securing a bilateral (rather than externally arbitrated) mechanism for resolving disputes.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism — Article IX
Article IX of the IWT creates a three-tier dispute resolution ladder: technical "questions" go to the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), unresolved "differences" go to a World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert, and legal "disputes" go to an ad hoc Court of Arbitration.
Key Details
- PIC is a bilateral body with one Commissioner from each country, meant to be the first channel of correspondence under the treaty
- The Neutral Expert route was first used in 2007 for the Baglihar hydroelectric project on the Chenab
- India considers Pakistan's simultaneous invocation of both the Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration processes over the Kishenganga (330 MW) and Ratle (850 MW) projects a violation of the treaty's graded, sequential dispute mechanism, and has boycotted the Court of Arbitration proceedings while participating in the Neutral Expert track
The parallel-proceedings dispute is central to India's argument that the treaty's dispute-resolution architecture itself needs renegotiation to close this ambiguity.
International Law on Treaty Suspension — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), 1969
Article 62 of the VCLT codifies the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (fundamental change of circumstances), under which a treaty may be suspended or terminated if circumstances have changed radically from those at signing, altering the essential basis of the obligations. Articles 65-68 lay out mandatory procedural steps, including written notification to the other party.
Key Details
- India is not a state party to the VCLT but treats many of its provisions as reflecting customary international law
- Article 62 sets a deliberately high threshold — the change must be fundamental and unforeseen, and cannot be invoked if the treaty itself establishes a boundary (an exception under Article 62(2))
- The IWT does not have a boundary-treaty character, so this exception does not directly bar India's position, though whether "abeyance" (a status the treaty itself does not define) satisfies VCLT's formal suspension/termination process remains a live legal debate
India's "abeyance" framing sits in a legal grey zone — the IWT text has no provision for suspension, so India's actions are best understood through the lens of general treaty law principles like rebus sic stantibus rather than the treaty's own text.
- IWT signed: 19 September 1960, Karachi, by Jawaharlal Nehru and Ayub Khan, with the World Bank as broker/guarantor
- Western rivers to Pakistan: Indus, Jhelum, Chenab; Eastern rivers to India: Ravi, Beas, Sutlej
- Kishenganga hydroelectric project: 330 MW, on a Jhelum tributary; 2013 Court of Arbitration award required India to maintain a minimum flow of 9 cumecs downstream
- Ratle hydroelectric project: 850 MW, on the Chenab
- Treaty placed in abeyance: April 2025, after a terror attack on civilians in Jammu and Kashmir
- First Indian notice seeking treaty modification: 25 January 2023