In the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack that claimed the lives of 26 Indian tourists, tensions between India and Pakistan have intensified. While the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) caused drought panic in Pakistan, the neighbour on Saturday accused India of releasing water into the Jhelum River without prior notification, leading to a sudden rise in water levels in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). This action has prompted flood alerts and heightened concerns over potential violations of the Indus Waters Treaty.
The recent flood alerts in PoK, following India’s release of water into the Jhelum River, are only the latest chapter in an increasingly turbulent story. This incident is not isolated, nor accidental. It is part of a much wider trend where water has been drawn into the hybrid conflict, often with devastating consequences.
The Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, which killed dozens of civilians, marked a brutal escalation. India’s subsequent halting of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) arrangements, combined with the sudden surge of Jhelum waters into Pakistan-controlled territory, signals a decisive shift. Water is no longer just a source of life or a tool for development. It has emerged as a silent yet potent weapon, capable of reshaping regional dynamics without a single bullet fired.
A Terror Attack and Its Immediate Aftermath
The attack in Pahalgam, targeting civilians in a popular tourist destination, shocked India and triggered widespread anger. As investigations unfolded, suspicion quickly pointed towards Pakistan-based groups, reigniting familiar tensions. However, even before diplomatic responses fully took shape, Islamabad accused New Delhi of releasing large volumes of water into the Jhelum without following established protocols.
Pakistan’s National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) swiftly issued a flood alert for areas downstream. Pakistani media carried reports suggesting that India’s sudden move posed a humanitarian threat to villages relying on the river’s predictable flow. The accusation, though predictable in tone, carried serious implications because it linked hydrological management with retaliatory motives, a dangerous precedent.
What Happened on the Jhelum?
Available data indicates that India may have released water from reservoirs that feed into the Jhelum basin. Hydrological patterns during this time of year, already stressed by snowmelt and pre-monsoon rainfall, can cause rapid surges even without malicious intent. The specifics are obviously contested.
In the Indus Water Treaty framework, India retains limited rights over the western rivers, including the Jhelum. While it can use the waters for non-consumptive purposes like hydroelectricity, India is required to operate dams in a way that does not materially harm Pakistan’s share. Crucially, the Treaty also obliges both countries to share certain information regarding flow changes, though the exact mechanisms for emergencies are less rigidly defined.
Pakistan claims it received no prior intimation. Indian officials have so far offered no public response, either confirming or denying the release.
Legalities and Protocol
The Indus Water Treaty, signed in 1960, is widely regarded as one of the world’s most resilient water-sharing agreements. It allocates the waters of the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers to India and the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab to Pakistan.
According to the Treaty, India must provide advance information for certain storage projects and operational adjustments. However, routine flow variations, especially those caused by natural factors like heavy rainfall or melting snow, do not always trigger a mandatory notification.
Where deliberate releases are concerned, the Treaty becomes less definitive. The lack of strict emergency protocols has often been criticised by water management experts, who argue that the IWT was crafted for an era with fewer hydrological uncertainties.
So even if India did release water, it could plausibly argue that the action was within the limits of its Treaty obligations. Conversely, Pakistan, feeling vulnerable downstream, is likely to treat the surge as an act of strategic messaging, particularly in the emotional aftermath of the Pahalgam killings.
Why the Jhelum Matters?
The Jhelum is a geopolitical artery. Rising from the Indian part of Kashmir, it flows into Pakistan’s heartland. Beyond irrigation and drinking water, the river has cultural and historical significance in both nations.
For Pakistan, the Jhelum symbolises vulnerability. Unlike the Chenab, which is protected by significant dams within Pakistan’s territory, the Jhelum’s control points lie mostly upstream in India. Even small alterations in water flow can have outsized impacts on agriculture, flood control, and hydroelectric output.
For India, the Jhelum represents strategic leverage, though rarely exercised. Given the repeated provocations through cross-border terrorism, the idea of using water pressure as a response has long been floated within certain Indian policy circles. Until now, restraint has governed actions on both sides, primarily to avoid destabilising an already volatile situation.
Pakistan’s Response
Islamabad’s quick pivot to accuse India suggests a mix of genuine fear and political manoeuvring. The NDMA’s flood alert indicates that authorities are treating the surge seriously. Yet Pakistani politicians have not missed the opportunity to frame the alleged release as aggressive and unlawful.
This dual track of caution and condemnation aligns with Pakistan’s traditional strategy of internationalising disputes. By framing India’s alleged water release as reckless or punitive, Pakistan seeks to draw global attention to a perceived humanitarian crisis, hoping to cast itself as the aggrieved party amid worsening bilateral relations.
The credibility of such claims is obviously undermined by Pakistan’s long history of using terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Against the backdrop of the Pahalgam attack, it is unlikely that many international observers will view Islamabad’s protestations with uncritical sympathy.
India’s Silence
New Delhi’s lack of immediate comment may be a calculated decision. By neither confirming nor denying Pakistan’s accusations, India avoids appearing vindictive, while retaining the ability to claim technical compliance with the IWT if necessary.
India has increasingly adopted a posture of ignoring Pakistani diplomatic provocations, focusing instead on international partnerships that bolster its standing. Reacting to every accusation risks giving Pakistan unwarranted strategic attention.
Silence will not and cannot continue indefinitely, especially if the situation worsens. A significant flood event linked to Indian actions, even indirectly, will escalate tensions to dangerous levels, particularly if lives are lost.
A New Phase in Water Management Conflicts?
If India did deliberately release water into the Jhelum without informing Pakistan, it would mark a major departure from past practice.
The current accusation hints at a potential new phase where water flows could be adjusted more assertively in response to security threats, at least in tactical situations. While unlikely to be formally adopted as a doctrine, the erosion of past norms could make sporadic hydrological friction more common.
It is worth remembering that in 1948, India halted water supplies from the Ferozepur headworks to Pakistani canals, an act that contributed to early hostilities. Though the situation today is not identical, echoes of that era are hard to miss.
Climate Change
Beyond bilateral politics, climate change adds a disruptive layer. The Himalayan rivers are increasingly volatile, driven by erratic rainfall patterns, glacier retreat, and shifting snowmelt timelines. These changes make both sudden surges and droughts more likely.
In this context, even well-intentioned reservoir operations can have unintended consequences downstream. Without real-time coordination, misunderstandings will multiply, fuelling suspicion and resentment.
The Indus Waters Treaty does not adequately address these emerging realities. Its focus on physical allocations rather than joint management of the ecosystem has left both countries vulnerable to newer forms of hydrological risk.
Future Scenarios: Three Possibilities
- Dialogue Resumes: Quiet backchannel communications could clarify the Jhelum incident, leading to improved flood management cooperation. This would require both sides to separate water management from broader political disputes, a difficult but not impossible task.
- Continued Stalemate: More likely is a grudging return to the status quo, where each side accuses the other without concrete evidence, treaties are cited selectively, and no substantive progress is made.
- Escalation: In the worst-case scenario, if another terror attack occurs or if water releases cause any humanitarian disasters, the situation could spiral into overt hydrological hostilities. This could involve deliberate dam sabotage, massive flood engineering, or military interventions at river infrastructure points.
Water as Silent Power
The sudden surge in the Jhelum is beyond a technical dispute. It is a signal that the long-standing assumptions underpinning water peace between India and Pakistan are fraying. Pakistan’s use of terrorism as a policy, retaliatory posturing, and ecological instability are colliding to create a far more fragile environment than ever before.
If the events following the Pahalgam attack have taught anything, it is that water has moved from the background of India-Pakistan relations to its volatile centre. Managing this transition wisely will be essential to prevent a humanitarian tragedy that neither side can afford, and a political disaster that could redraw the subcontinent’s future in ways far worse than anyone currently imagines.
