India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty after the Pahalgam terror attack is described as a strategic decision. A report says normal Indus water flow and improved India-Pakistan relations will remain unlikely until Pakistan undergoes significant political and diplomatic transformation.
India’s decision to place the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in abeyance following the deadly Pahalgam terror attack has been described as a strategic and logical move in a recent report, which argues that the future of the historic water-sharing agreement depends largely on Pakistan’s willingness to undergo a fundamental political and diplomatic transformation.
According to a report published by Media India Group, the existing framework of the Indus Water Treaty, signed in 1960, has failed to deliver balanced obligations between the two nations. The report contends that the treaty placed significant responsibilities on India while offering limited reciprocal commitments from Pakistan, making the arrangement increasingly unsustainable under current geopolitical circumstances.
The suspension of the treaty came after the Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 innocent civilians lost their lives. India attributed the attack to Pakistan-backed terrorists and responded by taking several diplomatic and strategic measures, including placing the treaty in abeyance. The report states that international agreements cannot be expected to function effectively when one party consistently undermines the principles of trust and cooperation.
The analysis further highlights that Pakistan has repeatedly failed to demonstrate a genuine commitment to peaceful engagement with India. Instead, it points to continued hostile rhetoric, provocative diplomatic statements, and repeated threats, including references to nuclear escalation. According to the report, these actions contradict the spirit of the Indus Water Treaty while Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism further weakens the foundation of bilateral cooperation.
The report also notes that Pakistan’s appeals to international tribunals and diplomatic pressure are unlikely to alter India’s position. It argues that New Delhi has consistently maintained that meaningful dialogue can only take place in an environment free from terrorism and violence. India has repeatedly emphasized that peace and cooperation require Pakistan to prevent its territory from being used for activities targeting India.
Reiterating the Indian government’s position, the report refers to the statement that “water and blood cannot flow together, and neither can terror and trade go hand in hand.” This message reflects India’s broader policy of linking bilateral engagement with security concerns and counter-terrorism commitments.
The report also examines the historical context of India-Pakistan relations, stating that Pakistan has initiated four conventional wars against India, each resulting in military and diplomatic setbacks. However, it argues that instead of reassessing its strategic policies, Pakistan’s military-political establishment has continued to pursue hostility, avoiding accountability and maintaining an adversarial stance toward India.
According to the report, lasting peace between the two neighbours will require a profound transformation within Pakistan. It suggests that the country must move beyond military dominance, strengthen democratic accountability, reject support for terrorism, and redefine its national priorities in favour of peaceful regional cooperation.
| Also Read: Bangladesh Jamaat credibility tested over ethics scandal |
Only through such comprehensive reforms, the report argues, can the possibility of restoring the regular flow of Indus waters under the treaty become realistic. Without these changes, it concludes, future dialogue between India and Pakistan will remain fragile, while prospects for normal cross-border trade and long-term diplomatic engagement will continue to be distant aspirations.
The report ultimately emphasizes that sustainable peace, regional stability, and the revival of bilateral agreements depend not merely on diplomatic negotiations but on a genuine transformation in Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policy approach.
