logo

Water, Terror, and Political Hypocrisy : Decoding the Real Threats to India's Sovereignty

Water, Terror, and Political Hypocrisy : Decoding the Real Threats to India's Sovereignty

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan and brokered by the World Bank, has long been hailed as one of the most enduring water-sharing agreements in the world. It allocated control of the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) to India and the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) to Pakistan. For over six decades, even amidst wars, border skirmishes, and relentless terror attacks, India upheld its commitment to the treaty — a gesture of goodwill that went unreciprocated by a state that has consistently used terrorism as an instrument of policy. Now, in a bold and long-overdue move, India has decided to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. This marks a significant shift in India’s diplomatic and strategic posture, signaling that national security and sovereignty will no longer be subordinated to outdated ideals of unilateral goodwill.

The suspension of the treaty carries profound implications. On the strategic front, it strikes at Pakistan’s water security — nearly 80 per cent of its irrigated agriculture depends on the Indus system. By halting or altering water flows, India gains a new tool of pressure, one that is entirely within the bounds of international law, considering Pakistan's continued violation of peace and bilateral trust through its sponsorship of terrorism. Economically, this allows India to accelerate long-pending hydropower projects and improve water management in the states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and Punjab. It also reinforces India’s message to the global community: it is willing to uphold peace, but not at the cost of its soldiers’ blood or its people’s patience.

The Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed the lives of innocent tourists in a brutal ambush, once again reminded the country that the threat from across the border is not just ideological but deeply institutional. This attack did not occur in a vacuum; it followed closely on the heels of the Supreme Court’s directive mandating assembly elections in Jammu & Kashmir. While the return to electoral democracy is a necessary step in the long process of normalization post-Article 370 abrogation, the decision has exposed deep vulnerabilities on the ground. Terror groups, emboldened by political uncertainty and backed by Pakistani handlers, are now seeking to derail this democratic process through fear and bloodshed. The timing of the Pahalgam attack is chilling reminders that while the law may declare normalcy, the reality on the ground is far from it.

Adding insult to injury, the Congress party’s Robert Vadra issued a tone-deaf and politically loaded statement in the aftermath of the attack, subtly questioning the motives behind its timing and insinuating that such incidents are conveniently used by the government. His comments are a textbook example of the Muslim appeasement politics that has long defined the Congress party’s approach to national security. Rather than uniting behind the armed forces or demanding accountability from Pakistan, Vadra’s rhetoric eerily mirrored the diversionary narratives often peddled by Pakistan itself — that every terror attack is politically motivated or stage-managed. This not only emboldens the enemy but also weakens national resolve at a time when unity is paramount.

The convergence of these three developments — the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, the terror attack in Pahalgam, and Vadra’s disturbing statements — paints a picture of a country at a crossroads. India must decide whether it will continue to tolerate duplicity in the name of secularism and diplomacy, or whether it will adopt a policy of principled assertiveness. Water, once a symbol of cooperation, must now be used as leverage. Terror, once met with restraint, must now be countered with both bullets and bold decisions. And politics, once clouded by appeasement, must now reflect a resolute commitment to national interest. The time for ambiguity is over — India must speak with one voice, act with one purpose, and never again compromise with terror or those who enable it.




Uday india bureau

Leave Your Comment

 

 

Top