Rivers Don’t Recognize Borders: Can the Indus Treaty Survive Political Conflict
While growing up, I was taught that rivers were a metaphor for life – they were free flowing, fertile, and brought people together. But as I started to learn about the politics of water in South Asia, I came to understand something rather uncomfortable: rivers may not flow through borders, but nations do. And once politics gets involved, the natural element of a river becomes a political issue.
The Indus Waters Treaty has been considered one of the most successful treaties between adversaries. The treaty was negotiated in 1960 with the help of the World Bank and allocated six rivers of the Indus Basin to India and Pakistan.[1] This left the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) for India, and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) primarily for Pakistan. In terms of water volume, this was 80% for Pakistan and 20% for India.[2] The treaty remained in place for decades, despite numerous wars and political confrontations. That was amazing in itself.
But now, looking at the tensions of recent days, I wonder: is this resilience starting to conflict?
When Water Entered the Political Battlefield
2025 was a pivotal year. After a deadly attack in Kashmir, India declared it would put the treaty “in abeyance” for the first time ever.[3] This was not merely a diplomatic development – it was a sign that something that was once non-negotiable – water – was now being brought into the political arena. Some reports indicated that the treaty was still in abeyance after a ceasefire, and that the functioning of water-sharing data and cooperation was disrupted.[4] This was another step to add to the region’s mistrust.
Lifeline of Millions: Why the Indus Matters
The Indus system is vitally important from a research point of view. For millions of people, their rivers are the lifeblood of Pakistan’s agriculture. Indeed, 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture depends on the Indus system[5]. When I hear this statistic, I don’t just think about the numbers, I think about the farmers waiting to see if they will get water and whether their crops will be ruined and their food security threatened. This is where we come into the picture.
Adding to the complexity of this issue is the location of the rivers. The Indus is a trans-boundary river, originating outside of both nations and passing through contentious areas on its way to Pakistan. So upstream activities, such as building dams or storing water, can affect downstream flow. India can use western rivers to produce electricity and irrigate land, but there have been issues with projects such as Kishanganga and Ratle, which have caused tensions.[6] These disputes show that while the treaty may have divided water, it did not remove suspicion.
From a strategic perspective, I see three key concerns with the future of the treaty. First is water as leverage. Although experts state that India does not yet have the capability to completely control river flows, even partial control over the timing and storage of water can be leveraged.[7] In a context of mistrust, even perceptions of control can be effective.
Second is the collapse of cooperation. The treaty set up bodies such as the Permanent Indus Commission to resolve disputes. But in recent years we have seen delays in meetings and disputes over the arbitration procedure.[8] When cooperation fails, competition rises.
Third is security insecurities. Water has been increasingly associated with national security. Comments like “water and blood cannot flow together” are a departure from cooperation to confrontation.[9] This is worrying to me because it transforms water from a resource to a weapon.
And, beyond the strategy and the politics, there is morality. Water is essential to human life. Lack of access to water is not just a political or economic issue – it is a human issue. Agriculturalists fear the lack of water, communities fear displacement, and whole regions fear conflict. Even the suspension of cooperation, as one report noted, has sparked fears over flooding, water scarcity and crop damage.[10]
This leads me to the question: is it ever ok to use water as a political weapon?
The answer would be no, from an ethical point of view. International agreements such as the Indus Waters Treaty aimed to keep vital resources free of conflict. They show preferencing humanity to conflict. But when these treaties are tested, it is ethically concerning. It prompts us to ask: are international standards sufficient to resist political forces? At the same time, I also know that a treaty is never just a treaty. The Indus Waters Treaty is not just a legal agreement, it also requires political support. If the two countries treat each other with distrust, the treaty will be difficult to sustain. But if they choose to cooperate, albeit in limited ways, the treaty can be a basis for peace.
At a Crossroads: Conflict or Cooperation?
In the future, I think there are three things that will determine the treaty’s fate. First, there needs be a return to communication. Without dialogue, the mistrust will increase. Second, there must be openness in water management – sharing of data, monitoring and confidence-building measures. Third, perhaps there needs to be a greater role for international stakeholders, such as the World Bank, to ensure the treaty’s principles are followed.
As I think about all this, I’m reminded of the river itself. It knows no politics, borders or war. It is life giving, unifying and shows us we are all dependent on the earth. The problem is not that rivers cross borders, but rather that borders cross rivers. The Indus Waters Treaty has weathered wars, crises and decades of conflict. That is a measure of its success. But it is at a critical juncture now. Whether it will survive or begin to fray will be determined not by nature, but by humans. And that is perhaps the true point: rivers do not respect borders – but peace, sadly, must be made.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Opinion Desk.
[1] Overview and structure of the Indus Waters Treaty, including river allocation and dispute mechanisms.
[2] Water distribution data
[3] India placing the treaty in abeyance and implications for water sharing.
[4] Continued suspension of the treaty and its importance to Pakistan’s agriculture.
[5] Continued suspension of the treaty and its importance to Pakistan’s agriculture
[6] Overview and structure of the Indus Waters Treaty, including river allocation and dispute mechanisms.
[7] Strategic limitations of water diversion and infrastructure constraints.
[8] Overview and structure of the Indus Waters Treaty, including river allocation and dispute mechanisms.
[9] Political rhetoric linking water with national security.
[10] India placing the treaty in abeyance and implications for water sharing.