'Trust dismantled, withdrawal is justified': Top geostrategist says India right to suspend Indus Water Treaty

Geostrategist Brahma Chellaney has strongly backed India's decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan in abeyance, calling it a long-overdue move to defend sovereignty and punish persistent betrayal. 

"When the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was signed in 1960, it was an act of extraordinary generosity on India’s part. Despite being the upstream riparian state, India reserved for Pakistan over 80% of the Indus Basin waters. Almost 65 years later, IWT remains the world’s most generous water-sharing treaty," Chellaney wrote. 

He noted that the treaty was "a bet on peace" — banking on India's water largesse to usher in stability. However, Pakistan repaid India's generosity "not with gratitude, but with grenades and guns."

Highlighting a long trail of attacks, Chellaney pointed to the 2001 Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai massacre, the 2016 Uri raid, and the 2019 Pulwama bombing as examples of "Pakistan-scripted terrorism" that has continued despite India's adherence to the treaty.

Referring to the latest terror strike in Pahalgam — where Hindu tourists were targeted and killed — Chellaney said national anger has forced India to take a legal step by placing the treaty "in abeyance."

"This is not about water alone. It is about principle, sovereignty and the right to protect one's people," he said, stressing that when a treaty’s foundational conditions collapse, the affected party has the right under international law to suspend or withdraw.

Chellaney argued that the Indus treaty is not merely about water-sharing but a mechanism of trust that has been systematically dismantled by Pakistan’s repeated support for terror proxies. "A country that repeatedly enables attacks on innocent civilians should forfeit the benefits of a legal arrangement designed for peaceful cooperation," he said.

He pointed out that other global powers, including the United States, have unilaterally exited treaties citing national security — and India is fully entitled to do the same.

Further, Chellaney accused Pakistan of "weaponising" the IWT by abusing its dispute mechanisms to delay or sabotage Indian projects. "And still, India waited," he remarked.

Now, Chellaney said, India is signalling that "endless patience should not be mistaken for weakness."

Citing the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), he noted that international law allows withdrawal in case of a material breach or fundamental change of circumstances, even though India has so far chosen only to put the treaty "in abeyance" instead of terminating it outright.

"India has neither the intent nor the hydro-infrastructure to disrupt downstream flows. Its adversary is the Pakistani deep state, not the Pakistani people," he emphasized.

He contrasted India’s restraint with China’s aggressive unilateral actions on rivers such as the Brahmaputra, warning that India must not continue to bear "the burdens without any benefits."

Calling the IWT an outdated model based on unconditional trust, Chellaney said, "India should offer an alternative water-sharing framework that is conditional on peace and verifiable conduct." 

He warned that without imposing sustained and multifaceted costs, Pakistan would continue to remain "Ground Zero for the international terrorist threat." "India’s restraint has been historic. Now, history demands resolve," Chellaney concluded.