The attack on civilians in Pahalgam has highlighted the persistent threat posed by proxy forces operating from Pakistan. Considering this, the Indian government has suspended the Indus Water Treaty, citing national security concerns and repeated provocations from across the border.

India has, on several occasions, officially conveyed to Pakistan its position on the treaty, seeking a review to address evolving geopolitical realities. The Indus Water Treaty, though hailed as a diplomatic achievement at the time of its signing in 1960, has increasingly become a point of contention due to a fundamental shift in the circumstances under which it was originally conceived.

The circumstances leading to the formation of the IWT are well-documented. As Brigadier S.K. Singh notes in his article for the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, the roots of the treaty lie in a period of heightened military tensions between India and Pakistan.

Following Pakistan’s military threats, engineers from both countries met and signed the Delhi Accord on May 4, 1948. This agreement laid the groundwork for the eventual signing of the Indus Water Treaty on September 19, 1960, amid ongoing hostility.
What makes the IWT unique is its durability—there is no termination clause in the treaty. However, this rigidity poses a challenge for India, especially as the original intent peaceful water-sharing—no longer reflects current realities.

But can India suspend a treaty with no termination clause?

India’s position to suspend the treaty can be supported by international legal doctrines, especially in light of continued terror attacks originating from Pakistani soil.

The Helsinki Rules on the uses of the waters of international rivers, adopted by the International Law Association in 1966, provide a legal basis for modifying or terminating existing uses of international waters when overriding competing interests arise. 

Article VIII (I) states: “An existing reasonable use may continue in operation unless the factors justifying its continuance are outweighed by other factors leading to the conclusion that it be modified or terminated so as to accommodate a competing incompatible use.”

Given the current threat to India’s national security, the continuation of the treaty cannot be justified under these rules, especially when the recipient nation is allegedly harbouring and supporting terrorism.

Another case supporting the suspension is Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. The articles codifies the principle of rebus sic stantibus—literally, “things thus standing”—allows for a treaty to be suspended or terminated due to a fundamental change in circumstances. 

The article allows for the termination of an agreement if the circumstances that led to consent in the first place has changed fundamentally and the effect of the change is radical to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed.

The rise of state-sponsored terrorism represents such a fundamental shift. The treaty was entered into with the implicit assumption that both parties would act in good faith and in pursuit of peaceful coexistence. However, the continuous acts of aggression have undermined that assumption, radically altering the balance of obligations under the treaty.

Also, the preparatory works of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties recognise that a treaty, if left unmodified despite significant changes in circumstances, could place an undue burden on one of the parties. 

It further adds that in such instances, rebus sic stantibus serves as a "safety valve" in international law—one that India can now justifiably invoke.

The doctrines of international law—both the Helsinki Rules and the Vienna Convention—support India’s stance, ensuring that international agreements do not bind a nation to obligations that jeopardise its sovereignty and security.