Skip to main content

Abrogating Indus Valley Treaty? It would invite major floods in J&K: Top expert

Counterview News    
Amidst Government of India floating the view that it may abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan, the view is getting strong, especially among knowledgeable circles, that any move in that direction would not just hit India adversely internationally, but it will also have major environmental consequences in the entire Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).
Signed 55 years ago, in 1960, and considered worldwide the most successful treaty between two countries, influential circles believe, it is particularly “not advisable” for India not to scrap the treaty, which is aspiring to become a permanent member of the United National Security Council.
The treaty “divides” six rivers, with three of them on the eastern front being “given” to India, and three others on the western side three rivers remaining “exclusively” with Pakistan. Considered “a win-win situation” for both, the treaty has not been questioned even during the worst of times with Pakistan – the 1965 and 1971 wars, or the Kargil imbroglio.
Worse, Dr Shakil Ahmad Romshoo, head of the earth sciences, geology and geophysics departments, University of Kashmir, in a recent interview, says that “people who talk about scrapping this treaty have no technical understanding.”
“There are so many trans-boundary rivers in the world and countries have to find a mechanism to share water. All over the world the Indus Waters Treaty is referred as our most successful treaty”, says Romshoo, adding, “At this moment we are sharing water with Bangladesh and Nepal too. If we scrap this treaty we will scare these countries as well.”
Vikas Swarup, the ministry of external affairs spokesperson, first hinted at the possibility of scrapping the treaty to teach Pakistan a lesson a few days back, while talking of “differences between India and Pakistan on the implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty,", insisting, “Eventually any cooperative arrangement requires goodwill and mutual trust on both sides."
Technically, says Romshoo, it is not possible to abrogate the treaty, pointing out, “Even if you put infrastructure to do so, it will take you 10 to 15 years to build canals to divert the water. J&K is a mountainous state and you will have to build canals to take the water out of the state.”
The rivers on the the eastern front are Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, for which rights have been given exclusively to India in the treaty. On the western front are Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, whose rights are with Pakistan, though some of their waters are used in J&K for the purpose of hydropower generation, for domestic use and for agriculture, while the rest of it being released to Pakistan.
Romshoo says, as of today, India does not have any infrastructure to store this water. “We have not build dams in J&K where we can store the water. And being a mountainous state, unlike Tamil Nadu or Karnataka, you cannot move water to another state. So you cannot stop water technically”, he adds.
In case India stops the river waters from entering Pakistan, says Romshoo, “the Kashmir valley will flood as will Jammu. You just don't have the storage capacity.” He adds, “In Kashmir you do not need too much water for irrigation purposes. If you look at the Indus Waters Treaty, India is entitled to store water, but has failed to develop that infrastructure in J&K.”

Comments

yatin said…
The headline is misleading. Walking out of the treaty allows India to use the water as it sees fit, and let however much (or little) that is left run into Pakistan. The only reason the IWT 'works' is that India is 100% the giver and Pakistan is 100% the receiver. Pakistan has no reason to walk out on a really good deal. If the roles were reversed, there would be no treaty. The first (and legal thing) India can do is begin building dams on the 3 rivers it is allowed to work on. It is silly that India has not done this yet.

TRENDING

How strategic is India's commercial expansion in the Mediterranean?

By Vijay Prashad  On 26 October 2026, Greece’s foreign minister George Gerapetritis stood at the United Nations headquarters and rejected the maritime agreement between Turkey and Libya. Gerapetritis spoke on behalf of Greece of course, but also Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, the European Union, and the United Arab Emirates. Five days later, the Indian frigate INS Trishul entered Souda Bay in Crete as part of activities with the US Navy installation (Naval Support Activity) and with the NATO Maritime Interdiction Operational Training Centre. The sequence illuminates a developing strategic geography: India’s naval reach, its confrontation with Pakistan’s new Turkish partner, and its ambition to connect Indian capital to European markets increasingly converge in the eastern Mediterranean.

India among targets as China-linked hackers 'exploit' VPNs, firewalls

Counterview News   Cyberattackers grew faster and harder to detect in 2025, increasingly slipping through trusted systems rather than breaking in with obvious malware, claims U.S.-based  cybersecurity technology company CrowdStrike's 2026 Global Threat Report . The report says adversaries "grew more evasive than ever before," exploiting trust in supply chain partners, legitimate software, internal systems and employees. CrowdStrike now tracks 281 adversaries after naming 24 new ones in 2025, plus 150 activity clusters and emerging threat groups.

The Modi-Adani relationship: Corporate power, political proximity and accountability

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan   India's economic transformation over the past decade has been marked by ambitious infrastructure projects, increased global investment and the emergence of powerful corporate conglomerates. Alongside this growth, however, concerns about crony capitalism, the concentration of economic power and the influence of political connections on business opportunities have become increasingly prominent.