India Suspends Indus Waters Treaty, Closes Wagah Border in Hardline Response to Pahalgam Attack

 the April 22, 2025, terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 people, mostly tourists, India adopted a hardline stance against Pakistan, attributing the attack to Pakistan-linked terrorists from The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, implemented a series of diplomatic, economic, and strategic measures to isolate Pakistan and pressure it to curb cross-border terrorism. These actions reflect India's zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism and its intent to hold Pakistan accountable. Below is a detailed overview of India's stance and actions post-Pahalgam.

Suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)

India announced the immediate suspension of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, a significant water-sharing agreement brokered by the World Bank, until Pakistan "credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism."

This move allows India greater control over the waters of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers, which are critical for Pakistan’s agriculture and hydropower. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri emphasized that the suspension was a direct response to Pakistan’s alleged role in supporting terrorism.

The suspension marks a shift in India’s strategic playbook, leveraging water as a pressure point, though experts note that unilateral abrogation is legally complex under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Closure of the Attari-Wagah Border:

India closed the Attari-Wagah border checkpost, a key trade and people-to-people contact point, with immediate effect. Pakistani nationals with valid endorsements were allowed to return via this route until May 1, 2025.

This closure severely restricts cross-border movement and trade, signaling a downgrade in bilateral engagement.

Cancellation of SAARC Visas for Pakistani Nationals:

India revoked the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) for Pakistani nationals, canceling all existing visas. Pakistani citizens in India under this scheme were given 48 hours to leave the country.

This measure effectively halts travel by Pakistani nationals to India, further isolating Pakistan diplomatically.

Expulsion of Pakistani Diplomats and Staff Reduction:

ndia revoked the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) for Pakistani nationals, canceling all existing visas. Pakistani citizens in India under this scheme were given 48 hours to leave the country.

This measure effectively halts travel by Pakistani nationals to India, further isolating Pakistan diplomatically.

Expulsion of Pakistani Diplomats and Staff Reduction:

India declared Pakistani defense, military, naval, and air advisors in New Delhi persona non grata, giving them one week to leave.

Both countries’ high commissions were reduced to 30 officials each, down from 55, significantly scaling back diplomatic presence.

India also withdrew its defense, navy, and air advisors from its High Commission in Islamabad, mirroring the expulsion of Pakistani officials.

Military and Security Posture

Defense Minister Rajnath Singh vowed a “strong response” targeting both the perpetrators and their masterminds, hinting at potential military action.

Analysts suggest India may consider cross-border strikes or airstrikes, similar to the 2016 Uri surgical strikes or the 2019 Balakot airstrike, if Pakistani complicity is confirmed. However, any response is expected to be calibrated to avoid escalation, given both nations’ nuclear capabilities.

The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Modi, directed security forces to maintain high vigilance and ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Accusations Against Pakistan

India accused Pakistan of facilitating “cross-border terrorism,” pointing to the TRF’s links to Lashkar-e-Taiba and statements by Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir, who, days before the attack, called Kashmir Pakistan’s “jugular vein” and vowed support for jihadist groups.

The timing of the attack, during Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia and U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s visit to India, was seen as an attempt to sabotage India’s diplomatic efforts and highlight the Kashmir issue.

International Support:

Saudi Arabia, a former ally of Pakistan, condemned the attack and offered India assistance, reflecting a shift in its stance due to zero tolerance for terrorism and deepening ties with India.

India’s actions, such as suspending the IWT, are bolstered by its reduced reliance on World Bank funding tied to the treaty, minimizing the risk of international financial backlash.

Potential Risks and Challenges

Pakistan declared India’s suspension of the IWT an “act of war” and threatened a response “across the complete spectrum of national power.” It also suspended bilateral agreements, including the 1972 Simla Agreement, and closed its airspace to Indian airlines.

Both nations’ nuclear capabilities cast a shadow over any military response, with analysts noting that calibrated strikes could lead to miscalculations, as seen in past crises like Pulwama in 2019.

Domestic Pressure:

The attack, one of the deadliest in Jammu and Kashmir in recent years, has fueled public outrage in India, with calls for a strong response. This pressure may push the government toward decisive action, though the impending retirement of Northern Command chief Lt Gen MV Suchindra Kumar on April 30, 2025, could complicate the timing of a military response.

Economic Impact:

The attack is expected to harm Kashmir’s booming tourism industry, a key economic driver for the region, affecting thousands of livelihoods.

Comparison with Past Incidents

India’s response aligns with its post-2016 and post-2019 playbook:

Uri (2016): After 19 soldiers were killed, India conducted surgical strikes across the Line of Control targeting militant launch pads.

Pulwama (2019): Following the deaths of 40 CRPF personnel, India launched airstrikes on a Jaish-e-Mohammad camp in Balakot, Pakistan, escalating tensions but avoiding full-scale war. The Pahalgam response is notable for its emphasis on diplomatic and economic measures, particularly the IWT suspension, alongside the potential for military action, indicating a multi-pronged strategy.

Critical Perspective 

While India’s measures signal resolve, they carry risks. The suspension of the IWT, though symbolically powerful, may face legal challenges, as the treaty requires mutual consent for termination. Pakistan’s denial of involvement and its claim that the attack was a “false flag” operation follow its standard playbook, complicating diplomatic resolution. Furthermore, the nuclear dimension necessitates restraint, as miscalculations could lead to catastrophic consequences. India’s reliance on international support, particularly from allies like Saudi Arabia, strengthens its position but does not eliminate the need for caution in a volatile region.

In summary, India’s stance post-Pahalgam is one of assertive retaliation, combining diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and the threat of military action to counter Pakistan’s alleged support for terrorism. However, the nuclear-armed status of both nations and the potential for escalation underscore the need for precision and restraint in India’s response.