🇺🇸📞🇺🇦 — US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodomyr Zelensky met today at the Vatican

🇮🇳🇵🇰 There’s a great deal of confusion circulating right now about the Indus Waters Treaty, following reports that India has moved to suspend its implementation. In light of this development, it’s important to clarify what the treaty actually is, how it works, and what this move does and does not mean in practice let me explain:

The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 with the facilitation of the World Bank, has long been considered one of the most durable water-sharing agreements in modern history. It governs the division of the Indus river system between India and Pakistan. Under the treaty, India has rights over the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej), while Pakistan has access to the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab). India is allowed limited use of the western rivers primarily for non-consumptive purposes such as hydropower but is not permitted to store or divert these waters in a way that harms downstream flow into Pakistan.

However, it's important to clarify that India is not entirely excluded from using the western rivers. The treaty permits India to use up to 20% of their flow for specific purposes, including irrigation, power generation, and navigation. These uses are strictly regulated to ensure minimal impact on Pakistan’s share. In addition, both countries maintain rights related to drainage issues, river conservation, and ecological management. Disputes over new projects are handled through treaty mechanisms such as neutral expert review or international arbitration not through unilateral decision-making.

With this in mind, the announcement of a suspension does not mean India is now physically cutting off water to Pakistan. That is both technically and politically unfeasible at this stage. India currently lacks the infrastructure required to block or significantly reduce water flows on the western rivers. Projects like Kishanganga and Ratle often mentioned in this context are hydroelectric in nature, not storage projects. Any future infrastructure capable of altering flow on a strategic scale would take years to build and would face not only engineering and environmental challenges, but also legal and international scrutiny.

This move should therefore be understood not as an operational shift, but as a political signal a form of pressure,r etaliation, in the context of the recent events. For Pakistan, however, the stakes are high. The Indus system provides the backbone of the country’s agriculture, drinking water, and economy around 20% of their GDP depends on it. Any suggestion of interference with that system understandably raises alarm.

As for China, while the Indus technically originates in Tibet, it plays no direct role in the treaty and has no significant control over the river's flow as it enters India. Claims that China is blocking the Indus are unfounded and largely serve as disinformation.

In short, it does not at least for now translate into a disruption of water flow.
What we’re seeing is a new pattern that hasn’t been observed before, but the suspension it’s more of a political move than a practical one. For now, the situation is more about signaling than immediate action, as the infrastructure needed to affect water flows just doesn’t exist yet. Still, this escalation could be dangerous, and it’s something to watch closely.

🔗 GeoInsider