What is the Indus Waters Treaty suspended by India after Pahalgam attack
How does the treaty suspension affect Pakistan
_vb_46.jpeg)
New Delhi: In response to the recent terror attack in Pahalgam that killed 28 people, India on Wednesday announced the suspension of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan. The decision was part of a set of retaliatory measures aimed at pressuring Islamabad to withdraw its support for cross-border terrorism.
The announcement was made by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri during a press conference held after a high-level meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Misri stated that the treaty would remain suspended until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for terrorism.
What is the Indus Waters Treaty?
Signed on 19 September 1960 in Karachi, the Indus Waters Treaty was brokered by the World Bank and signed by then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s President Field Marshal Ayub Khan. The treaty outlines the division of the Indus River system between the two countries.
Under the agreement, India was given control over the eastern rivers, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej, while Pakistan was allocated the waters of the western rivers, Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. While India is permitted to generate hydroelectricity through run-of-the-river projects on the western rivers, Pakistan retains the right to raise objections on project designs.
The river system plays a crucial role in both countries’ agriculture and water supply. After the 1947 partition, Pakistan became the lower riparian state and India the upper riparian state, necessitating an agreement to prevent future disputes.
The treaty includes 12 Articles and 8 Annexures, and was known for surviving multiple Indo-Pak conflicts. India had already sent a notice to Pakistan in September last year seeking a review and modification of the treaty.
What can India now do under the suspension?
According to P. K. Saxena, former Indian Commissioner for Indus Waters:
- India may stop sharing water flow data with Pakistan
- India can build storage infrastructure on Western Rivers like the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab
- Pakistan officials may be denied access to inspect Indian hydropower projects
- India can begin reservoir flushing techniques at projects like Kishenganga to improve dam longevity
However, Saxena clarified that immediate disruption of Pakistan’s water supply is unlikely, as India lacks the infrastructure to stop or divert river flows at present.
Legal implications and Pakistan’s options
The IWT does not include an exit clause, making unilateral withdrawal technically illegal. While it includes a dispute resolution mechanism (Article IX and Annexures F & G), this is limited to disputes within the treaty's scope, not enforcement of the treaty itself.
In 2016, Pakistani legal expert Ahmer Bilal Soofi said arbitration would be ineffective if India refuses to recognise the treaty, and Pakistan cannot approach the ICJ due to India’s reservations under the ICJ statute.
Longstanding tensions over Hydroelectric projects
Disputes over Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir have long strained the treaty. In January 2023, India sent its first-ever notice seeking modification of the treaty, followed by a second notice in September 2024.
Pakistan has opposed the projects’ design, claiming they violate IWT provisions. Though these are "run-of-the-river" projects that do not obstruct river flow, Islamabad argues they could be misused to manipulate water supply.
India, citing Pakistan’s continued resistance, invoked Article XII(3), which allows modification of the treaty through mutual consent.
Role of neutral expert
In January 2025, Michel Lino, a Neutral Expert appointed by the World Bank, ruled that he was competent to adjudicate the dispute over the Kishenganga and Ratle projects. While Pakistan claimed the differences exceeded the expert's mandate, India argued they were well within the treaty’s provisions.
What happens next?
Pakistan is yet to officially respond to India’s suspension. However, the move is likely to escalate tensions, both diplomatically and politically. Given the treaty's pivotal role in Indo-Pak relations and South Asia’s water security, the consequences of this suspension could be profound and long-lasting.
Additional measures announced
Apart from suspending the treaty, the Indian government unveiled a series of other diplomatic and security steps:
1. Closure of Attari checkpost: The integrated checkpost at Attari has been shut. Pakistani nationals who entered through this route may return before 1 May 2025.
2. Visa cancellations: All SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) visas previously issued to Pakistani nationals have been cancelled. Those already in India under SVES have 48 hours to leave.
3. Expulsion of defence advisors: India has declared all Defence, Military, Naval, and Air Advisors in the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi as *persona non grata*. They have a week to leave the country.
4. Withdrawal of Indian advisors from Islamabad: India has also withdrawn its own Defence, Navy, and Air advisors from its High Commission in Islamabad, effectively nullifying those positions.
The decisions come amid growing domestic outrage over the attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam, where gunmen opened fire on tourists, killing 28 and injuring several others.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
