India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty marks a bold departure from decades of misplaced restraint. For too long, Pakistan has exported terror across the border with impunity, hiding behind international agreements that assumed basic good faith. That assumption has now collapsed. The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960, gave Pakistan access to 80 per cent of the river waters essential to its agriculture and economy. Even during wars, India honoured its commitments.

But Pakistan’s persistent sponsorship of cross-border terrorism, culminating in the latest brutal attack in Kashmir, cannot be answered only by diplomatic protests and empty warnings. A nation that sends militants across the border cannot expect its water lifelines to flow uninterrupted. Water is not just a resource; it is survival. Pakistan’s agriculture, drinking water, and electricity generation all hinge on the rivers governed by this treaty. Suspending it sends an unambiguous message: actions have consequences. If Pakistan chooses to destabilise India with violence, it should not expect business-as-usual cooperation in return. Those raising alarms about humanitarian fallout must also ask why Pakistan’s priorities have remained skewed for decades.

Advertisement

Instead of investing in efficient water use, reservoir cap – acity, or food security, Islamabad has poured resources into nurturing militant networks. It is not India’s responsibility to subsidise the reckless choices of a neighbour that refuses to abandon terrorism as state policy. India’s move is rooted in strategy, not emotion. Critics argue that India’s infrastructure limits immediate diversion or control of the rivers. True ~ large-scale changes will take years. But the suspension already strips Pakistan of critical river data and early flood warnings, introducing uncertainty into a system designed for stability. Over time, new dams and canal systems will allow India to fully exercise its sovereign rights under changing realities.

Moreover, the international community must now recognise the real asymmetry in South Asia: one country struggling to defend itself from persistent terror, and another using agreements like this one as a shield while harboring extremism. India’s action is not about provoking a humanitarian crisis; it is about forcing accountability where none existed. This is not a reckless move; it is a calibrated act of self-defence. India has not laun – ched missiles or crossed borders ~ it is leveraging its natural advantages in response to an enemy that thrives on asymmetry.

When faced with existential threats, nations must use every tool available to protect their citizens. Pakistan, predictably, calls this an “act of war.” Yet it has waged an undeclared war for decades ~ through terror proxies, insurgents, and propaganda. If denying the benefits of a treaty meant for peaceful neighbours feels like war, it only exposes the depth of Pakistan’s dependence and duplicity. India must stand firm. Suspending the treaty is not the end goal but a pressure tactic. It creates space for serious international scrutiny of Pakistan’s terror networks and reminds Islamabad that support for militancy carries real costs. For once, India is speaking in the only language Pakistan understands: the language of consequences.