Practice MCQs
India announced the IWT will be held in abeyance after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.
The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) grants India full control over the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej), while Pakistan controls the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab).
Article XII of IWT clearly states that it cannot be altered unilaterally.
"Hold in abeyance" is not a term recognized under international treaty law (VCLT 1969). The proper term is “suspension” or “termination.”
Vienna Convention Article 62 permits treaty withdrawal if there's a “fundamental change in circumstances”.
However, the ICJ (Fisheries Jurisdiction and Hungary-Slovakia Dam cases) held that political/environmental changes alone are insufficient to justify such action unless the threshold is extremely high.
Pakistan is heavily reliant on Indus waters for:
- **80% of its agriculture**
- **One-third of its hydropower output**
India’s current infrastructure lacks the capacity to withhold massive water volumes but could still introduce uncertainty over flows, disrupting Pakistan’s economy.
India might be using “abeyance” as a tactical tool without outright violating the treaty.
Scientific/Legal Concepts Involved:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): Governs how treaties are created, modified, suspended, or terminated.
Run-of-the-River Hydropower: A system with limited storage; cannot hold water for long durations.
Customary International Law: Even without ratification, widely accepted principles apply, like Article 62.
Significance:
Marks a strategic policy shift using water as a diplomatic lever.
Highlights the role of hydropolitics in national security.
Could set a precedent in India's treaty management under new threat scenarios.
Mains Mock Question:
"Can India suspend the Indus Waters Treaty unilaterally under international law? Discuss the legal, strategic, and environmental implications of such a move."