India’s unilateral decision to suspend its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty — an agreement that has withstood three wars between India and Pakistan — has triggered alarm both regionally and globally.
The move, which came in the aftermath of the deadly Pahalgam attack in Indian-held Kashmir, has been sharply criticized by The Financial Times for threatening regional stability and undermining decades of water diplomacy.
The British publication, in a strongly worded opinion piece, warned that India’s action risks transforming a fragile yet functioning system into a new front of conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
Treaty that survived wars
Signed in 1960 with the World Bank as a guarantor, the Indus Waters Treaty has long been considered a rare success in India-Pakistan relations. Under its terms, India controls the eastern rivers (Ravi, Sutlej, Beas), while Pakistan has rights over the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab). Despite repeated military conflicts, including full-scale wars in 1965, 1971, and 1999, the treaty had remained intact—until now.
India’s recent suspension is the first such instance in over six decades. The government in New Delhi alleges Pakistani involvement in the Pahalgam attack, a claim Islamabad has denied. However, critics argue that using water as a geopolitical weapon marks a dangerous escalation.
Financial Times: India jeopardizing own security
In its analysis, The Financial Times cautioned that India’s move is likely to backfire, undermining not just Pakistan’s water security but also India’s own. “Unilateral actions against Pakistan are also detrimental to India’s water future,” the paper noted, pointing to India’s own reliance on upstream water sources controlled by China, Nepal, and Bhutan.
Furthermore, the opinion piece highlighted that India’s suspension could escalate tensions over water management, potentially triggering diplomatic and ecological instability.
Environmental risks growing
The article emphasized that the treaty’s original assumptions have been eroded by population growth, climate change, and shifting hydrological patterns. Snow persistence in the Hindu Kush Himalaya is now at a 23-year low, with scientists predicting erratic water flow—first through increased floods, followed by potential droughts as glaciers shrink.
In such a volatile context, the suspension of the treaty could deepen suffering on both sides of the border. Pakistan, where agriculture contributes nearly 25% to GDP, is particularly vulnerable. India’s threat to withhold water data could make it harder for Pakistani farmers to manage irrigation amid increasingly unpredictable monsoons.
Joint responsibility over shared resources
Legal experts and human rights advocates in both countries have urged restraint, highlighting that climate justice and water equity are inseparable from national security.
“India and Pakistan must urgently review unilateral measures and focus on collaborative water governance,” the Financial Times wrote, urging both sides to “avoid weaponising a shared lifeline.”
Call for regional water diplomacy
As water becomes an increasingly scarce and contested resource, experts argue that long-term peace in South Asia will depend as much on rivers as on borders. The Financial Times concludes that the current crisis should serve as a wake-up call for India and Pakistan to modernize and recommit to water-sharing frameworks that prioritize both human and environmental security.
“Rather than weaponising water,” the article asserts, “a renewed focus on jointly managing a vital shared resource might yet broaden how both India and Pakistan think about security in the difficult days ahead.”
