The people dismissed Pakistan’s efforts at creating a “victim narrative” on the false premise that India intends to cut off water supplies.
The Indus Waters Treaty, especially provisions for sharing cross-border rivers, will not function again in its current form, and there is no evidence of Pakistan abjuring terrorism, a key reason for the pact being suspended in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, people familiar with the matter said on Monday.
India put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance as part of a package of punitive diplomatic and economic measures soon after The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy for Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), killed 26 civilians at Pahalgam in April 2025. India launched Operation Sindoor in May last year to target terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan in retaliation for the attack.
The people, who spoke on condition of anonymity, were emphatic that the treaty, in its present form, “will not function again”, and the provisions related to the sharing of trans-boundary rivers have to be renegotiated in view of factors such as climate change, changes in demography and advances in hydrological technology since the 1950s, when the pact was negotiated.
The people also linked any review of India’s decision to keep the treaty — signed in September 1960 by then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and then Pakistan president Mohammad Ayub Khan — in abeyance to Islamabad abjuring its support for cross-border terrorism. They emphasised that there is currently no evidence that Pakistan has taken any steps to end its support for terrorism.
“On the contrary, we continue to receive reports that proscribed groups and individuals sanctioned by the UN Security Council’s 1267 Sanctions Committee continue to appear at public events in Pakistan, and continue to have platforms to propagate their messages,” one of the people said.
“The evidence that our [security] agencies have, in terms of their activities just across the Line of Control, suggests no credible steps have been taken so far to control their activities,” he said.
Before the treaty was suspended, the Indian side formally approached Pakistan four times since 2023 to renegotiate the pact, the people said. India’s last formal letter had indicated that the Indian side was willing to meet Pakistan at any location of its choice. Pakistan, in its final response on May 8, 2025, said it was willing to listen to India’s viewpoint at the level of the Indus Waters Commissioners, but New Delhi said the discussions should be between the two governments, they said.
Pakistan’s actions, including efforts to block virtually all water management projects on cross-border rivers proposed by India, have eroded the “spirit of goodwill and friendship” that formed the bedrock of the treaty’s preamble, the people pointed out. The lopsided arrangement agreed to by New Delhi — whereby India agreed to give an 81% share of the river waters to Pakistan — was aimed at facilitating the resolution of issues between the two sides, but this never happened, they said.
The people dismissed Pakistan’s efforts at creating a “victim narrative” on the false premise that India intends to cut off water supplies, and pointed out that Islamabad had failed to effectively manage or use its share of the river waters. Out of the 140 million acre feet (MAF) of water available annually in the cross-border rivers, Pakistan wastes almost 35 MAF — more than India’s share — by allowing it to flow into the sea, the people said.
The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank, allocated the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, Chenab – to Pakistan, and the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – to India. It allowed each country certain uses on the rivers allocated to the other.
Pakistan also went against the treaty’s graded mechanism for addressing disputes, which envisages differences being tackled first by the Indus Waters Commissioners or governments, before the matter is referred to a neutral expert, and then to a court of arbitration. While Pakistan sought the appointment of a neutral expert to handle objections to the Kishenganga and Ratle projects in 2015, it unilaterally retracted this in 2016 and sought a court of arbitration.
