India Explained
ImplementedINCJawaharlal Nehru

Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan

World Bank-brokered 1960 treaty dividing the Indus system between India (eastern rivers) and Pakistan (western rivers), with a dispute mechanism. India placed it in abeyance in April 2025.

Neighbourhood

Facts

  • The treaty was signed in Karachi on 19 September 1960 by Jawaharlal Nehru and Ayub Khan, with a World Bank representative also signing; the Bank is the depositary [1][4].
  • India received the three eastern rivers (Beas, Ravi, Sutlej), with an average annual flow reported at about 33 million acre-feet (MAF). Pakistan received the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab), reported at about 136 MAF [2].
  • India may use the western rivers for domestic use, limited irrigation and run-of-river hydropower, and may build limited storage (reported as 3.6 MAF in total) [2].
  • A Permanent Indus Commission, a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration handle questions and disputes. The Baglihar plant went to a neutral expert and the Kishanganga plant to a Court of Arbitration [4].
  • In January 2023 India sent Pakistan a notice seeking to modify the treaty [4].
  • On 23 April 2025, after the Pahalgam attack, India announced it was holding the treaty in abeyance. India has not participated in the Court of Arbitration proceedings, and in 2026 it rejected the court's awards as made by an illegally constituted body [3][4].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • The Bank-led talks, which followed a 1950s proposal by David Lilienthal and a Bank plan of 1954, aimed to settle the use of the Indus system between the two states through an agreed allocation [4].
  • On the 2025 abeyance (a later action, recorded here for completeness), the Government of India cited national security following the Pahalgam attack [4].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • Indian commentary, for example a Deccan Herald explainer, argues the treaty is overdue for a relook because India uses little of what it is permitted on the western rivers [2].
  • Pakistan has said, as the lower riparian, that it cannot risk abrogation and wishes to follow the treaty's procedures [4].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Gave India assured control over the eastern rivers and a defined legal basis for sharing the system.India obtained control of the Beas, Ravi and Sutlej, with an average annual flow of about 33 MAF [2].
  • Created standing dispute-resolution routes that were used for technical disagreements.Baglihar was resolved by a neutral expert and Kishanganga by a Court of Arbitration [4].

Concerns (2)

  • Pakistan is reported to receive about 80% of the system's waters by volume, which Indian commentators criticise, and India has built limited western-river capacity within its permitted uses.Pakistan is reported to receive about 80% of the system's waters by volume. India irrigated about 0.792 million acres from the western rivers against a permitted 1.34 million acres and had built no storage there (as reported by Deccan Herald) [2].
  • The treaty's dispute procedures have become contested, and the treaty has been in abeyance since April 2025, which adds uncertainty for both countries.India rejects the Court of Arbitration awards of May and August 2026 as made by an illegally constituted body; Pakistan has sought to follow treaty procedures [3][4].

Evidence points

+9.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+8 to +11
range between the two scorers' totals
Medium confidence
1 criterion where scorers differ
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +3.0A +3B +3
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean +1.5A +2B +1
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean +1.5A +1B +2
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean +1.5A +2B +1
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +2.0A +3B +1Scorers differ

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Treaty gave a stable allocation for decades and workable dispute routes, though India placed it in abeyance in 2025 and arbitration is contested.

Scorer B. The treaty gave a lasting allocation framework and dispute routes, but allocation by volume favours the other side and it has been in abeyance since April 2025.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
After partition in 1947 there was no permanent India-Pakistan agreement on the Indus system, and the World Bank began mediating in the 1950s.
Lag before outcomes show
5 years
Shocks considered
indo-pak-war-1965, indo-pak-war-1971, kargil-1999, pahalgam-attack-2025
Uncertainty
Medium confidence. Scorer totals are +11 and +8. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The treaty divides the Indus system by river rather than by volume. The three eastern rivers went to India for unrestricted use and the three western rivers went to Pakistan, with India allowed specific non-consumptive and limited uses on the western rivers. Annexures set design limits for run-of-river hydropower, which is the source of most later disputes.

Supporters point to its long operation, its technical dispute routes and the fact that the 1960 text set out rights and obligations in detail. Critics in India argue that the allocation by volume favours Pakistan and that India’s permitted uses on the western rivers remain under-developed. Pakistan’s position is that the lower riparian needs the treaty’s certainty.

India put the treaty in abeyance on 23 April 2025. The treaty text itself has no provision for unilateral suspension, and the Court of Arbitration, which India does not recognise, has issued awards on matters including the status of the treaty. The legal position is therefore disputed between the two countries. Figures for flows and storage differ slightly between sources and should be checked against the treaty annexures.

Sources

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedJDForeign Policy

    Ganga Water Sharing Treaty with Bangladesh

    A 30-year treaty signed in December 1996 sharing Ganga water at Farakka in the January-May dry season, replacing earlier short-term arrangements. It is due for renewal in December 2026.

    Evidence points +3.5 (range +2.0 to +5.0)

  • ImplementedJDForeign Policy

    Gujral Doctrine on relations with neighbours

    A set of five principles for ties with South Asian neighbours, including non-reciprocity towards smaller neighbours, set out by External Affairs Minister I. K. Gujral in September 1996.

    Evidence points +1.5 (range +1.0 to +2.0)

  • ImplementedJDForeign Policy

    Decision not to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

    In August 1996 India declined to support the CTBT text at the Conference on Disarmament, objecting to its entry-into-force clause and the absence of time-bound disarmament. It later conducted tests in 1998.

    Evidence points +1.0 (range 0.0 to +2.0)

  • ImplementedINCForeign Policy

    India-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement

    The 123 Agreement and related waivers of 2008 allowed India civil nuclear trade despite being outside the NPT, in return for placing 14 reactors under IAEA safeguards. It was contested domestically.

    Evidence points +4.0 (range +3.0 to +5.0)