In Abeyance

India can turn towards Article 60. This allows suspension/termination based on a 'material breach' of the treaty. Since India believes that Pakistan is in material breach, this may justify suspending the treaty. Even then, the defence of Article 60 is predicated on a violation of an essential provision of the concerned treaty — it has to be judged objectively. In the present case IWT does not contain any provisions and/or indication — express or implied — that acts of conflict or aggression which are not per se violations of the provisions of the treaty, may constitute essential conditions and justify suspension. The only justification can be by relying on Article 60 (3) (b) that Pakistan's act seriously jeopardizes accomplishing the object of the treaty which is, as indicated in the preamble, 'cooperative spirit' of 'goodwill and friendship'

- 

Few have described Kashmir more beautifully than Indo-Persian Sufi poet Khusrau – a place which was converted into a graveyard on 22 April 2025. This backdrop has led to the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) as India retaliates – albeit diplomatically.

Apart from its water consequences on Pakistan, it raises a far more important question: Whether India could have done this, in the first place. Accordingly, I argue that India walks a fine line – where arguments galore both for and against exist – while clarifying certain misconceptions that have crept in.

The IWT needs no separate introduction. For 64 years the treaty has been at the forefront of Indo-Pak diplomacy and tug of war. Previously, Pakistan has invoked IWT's dispute settlement provision (Article IX) birthing two arbitrations. The first resulted in an award by the PCA in 2013.

The latter is still pending (Pakistan v. India, PCA Case No. 2023-01) and has uniquely resulted in a 'parallel' proceeding in which both the PCA and the neutral expert have asserted competence and jurisdiction.

The Pahalgam attacks have now compelled India to announce the immediate 'abeyance' of IWT followed by the official notification. This raises a fundamental question, can India do so? It is interesting to note that India in its official announcement uses the phrase 'abeyance' with immediate effect instead of 'suspension' or 'termination'. The word 'abeyance' means suspension or temporary inactivity (Blacks Law Dictionary; See also P. Aiyar, Concise Law Dictionary).