As calls from Pakistan over the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) continue to intensify, India has reportedly adopted a firmer position, stating that the 65-year-old agreement requires a complete overhaul and cannot continue in its existing form, PTI reported, citing government sources. New Delhi has also made it clear that any future arrangement would depend on Pakistan demonstrating that it has permanently ended cross-border terrorism.
In recent months, Pakistan's military and political leadership have repeatedly warned of serious consequences—including the possibility of war and even the use of nuclear weapons—if India were to completely halt the flow of water after placing the treaty in abeyance last year.
According to the sources, any future restoration of the river water-sharing mechanism would require the treaty to be renegotiated in a revised format. They added that such a move would be contingent on Pakistan ending all support for terrorism directed against India. The sources also said India is not currently seeking to withdraw from the treaty altogether but retains the sovereign right to terminate any agreement that no longer serves its national interests.
"It would be accurate to say that the IWT in its present form will not function again. If provisions related to river water sharing have to be reactivated, they have to be done in a different form, not in the present form. And only if Pakistan abjures terrorism," a source said.
Another source told PTI that any decision to revive the treaty would depend largely on Pakistan's conduct, particularly whether it takes concrete steps to stop cross-border terrorism.
"We haven't seen any evidence that they are making any effort in that direction," the source said.
Government sources also accused Pakistan of promoting what they described as a false narrative that India's decision to suspend the treaty has caused water shortages. According to them, a substantial portion of the water allocated to Pakistan is lost due to inadequate storage infrastructure, widespread leakages and unresolved disputes over water distribution among its provinces.
On whether India could eventually withdraw from the treaty, another source told PTI, "It depends on the actions that Pakistan takes going forward."
The sources said India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty as part of a series of diplomatic and economic measures announced after the April terror attack in Pahalgam, in which 26 civilians were killed.
Indian officials have maintained that the attack was carried out by The Resistance Front, which they describe as a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. In response, India launched Operation Sindoor in May, targeting what it described as terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan.
Under the World Bank-brokered Indus Waters Treaty, India has exclusive rights over the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas and Sutlej—while Pakistan controls the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. The treaty also grants both countries limited usage rights over each other's river systems and permits India to construct run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects, including Kishenganga and Ratle, on the western rivers before they flow into Pakistan.
India and Pakistan signed the treaty on September 19, 1960, after nine years of negotiations to regulate the sharing of cross-border rivers. Before placing the agreement in abeyance, India had consistently argued for its modification, citing what it described as Pakistan's unwillingness to resolve disputes constructively. New Delhi also insisted that the treaty's graded dispute resolution mechanism should be followed, arguing that multiple parallel mechanisms could not operate simultaneously.
According to the sources, Pakistan initially sought the appointment of a neutral expert in 2015 to examine its objections to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydropower projects. However, in 2016, it withdrew that request and instead sought a Court of Arbitration. Later that year, the World Bank appointed both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration, although India refused to recognise the arbitration proceedings. While India participated in meetings convened by the neutral expert, it did not take part in the Court of Arbitration process.
The sources further alleged that Pakistan's conduct under the treaty has consistently reflected obstruction rather than cooperation. They claimed that Pakistan has objected to nearly every Indian project on the western rivers since the treaty came into force, regardless of its size, storage capacity or technical specifications.
According to the sources, even a small 200-kilowatt hydropower project intended to provide electricity to a remote tribal region faced prolonged objections. Larger projects such as Salal, Tulbul, Baglihar, Kishenganga, Ratle and Pakal Dul also encountered similar resistance. They argued that Pakistan had used the treaty not to ensure compliance but to delay and obstruct India's legitimate development projects.
The sources also said the treaty's dispute resolution provisions, originally intended as an exceptional mechanism for resolving genuine disagreements, had increasingly been used to delay Indian projects. According to PTI, they alleged that Pakistan routinely escalated technical issues to international forums, prolonged bilateral discussions without resolution and, in recent years, pursued parallel proceedings before both the neutral expert and the Court of Arbitration despite the treaty's graded dispute resolution framework.
They further claimed that Pakistan has failed to take credible action against terrorism.
"On the contrary, we continue to receive reports that proscribed individuals and entities sanctioned by the UN Security Council's 1267 sanctions committee continue to appear at public events in Pakistan, continue to be able to have platforms that they can use to propagate their messages," another source said.
The source also said intelligence available with Indian agencies suggested that there had been no meaningful effort to curb terrorist activity along the Line of Control.
According to the sources, the future of the Indus Waters Treaty will ultimately depend on Pakistan's conduct, both in addressing terrorism and in its approach to implementing the agreement. They reiterated that the treaty cannot be revived in its current form and that any future water-sharing arrangement would require a revised framework and a permanent end to cross-border terrorism against India.
