Indus treaty: India’s abeyance decision

A day after gunmen killed 26 people at Pahalgam, India announced that it would hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri set out the Cabinet Committee on Security’s decision on 23 April 2025, linking any return to the agreement to Pakistan ending support for cross-border terrorism. [1]

The decision placed a long-standing water-sharing arrangement inside India’s response to the attack. Pakistan rejected the move and denied the basis for linking it to terrorism. The announcement created an immediate diplomatic and legal dispute; it did not, by itself, establish how much water was being stored, released or diverted. [3] [4]

A framework built in 1960

The treaty followed nine years of negotiations assisted by the World Bank. It allocated the eastern Ravi, Beas and Sutlej to India and the western Indus, Jhelum and Chenab to Pakistan, while permitting specified uses by each country on rivers allocated to the other. It also established the Permanent Indus Commission for cooperation and information exchange. [2]

The arrangement therefore covered more than a broad division of river water. It regulated infrastructure, information and methods for resolving disagreements. India’s permissible hydroelectric uses on the western rivers were subject to design constraints. Changes in cooperation could affect these relationships even without an immediate, measurable cessation of flows. [2]

Misri announced abeyance alongside other measures, including closure of the Attari crossing and reductions in diplomatic representation. India’s stated trigger was its account of the attack’s cross-border links. Pakistan warned that stopping or diverting water allocated to it would be treated as an act of war. Both positions raised the stakes around an agreement that had endured earlier periods of conflict. [1] [2] [3]

An award, and India’s rejection

The treaty dispute continued through an existing Court of Arbitration, with the Permanent Court of Arbitration acting as its secretariat. India did not participate in the phase examining treaty status. On 31 August 2026, the tribunal unanimously held that the agreement remained in force and that India remained bound by its obligations, rejecting the grounds examined for suspension or termination. [4]

India rejected the award, maintaining that the tribunal had been improperly constituted and lacked jurisdiction. The external affairs ministry reiterated that its abeyance decision remained in force. The arbitral finding and India’s position consequently remained in direct conflict. [5]

Neither the announcement nor the competing legal positions provide a basin-wide measurement of water withheld. That would require dated flow records, reservoir operations and weather conditions. For communities depending on the rivers, the practical consequences lie in those operations and in the information exchanged about them, while the governments continue to dispute the framework governing both. [2] [4] [5]