Situationer: India’s questionable ‘warnings’ in the face of raging currents

THIS monsoon season has laid bare how politics is seeping into the riverbanks, eroding one of South Asia’s most enduring mechanisms of cooperation at a time when the region needs it most.

After all, New Delhi has used the devastating floods sweeping across northern India and Pakistan to reassert its unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), while trying to present its ‘limited alerts’ as gestures of concern.

The IWT, signed in 1960, has long been hailed as a rare success story in an otherwise conflict-prone relationship. Through wars and diplomatic standoffs, it provided a framework for data sharing, water allocation, and flood management.

Between July and October, this system used to enable near-continuous updates on river flows, with information exchanged via the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), a joint body established for that very purpose.

That arrangement had been gradually eroding over the past decade, but it effectively collapsed this year after India, in April, placed the treaty in what it termed “abeyance” following the Pahalgam terrorist attack. It was an unprecedented step in the treaty’s history.

Since then, the routine flow of data has dried up. Before the decline that began around 2013–14, the IWT framework enabled a highly detailed exchange of flood information.

Notifications were not limited to generic warnings; they included advance forecasts of potential flood volumes, expected timings, and specific rivers likely to be affected. The data shared was granular down to daily, site-specific measurements covering river levels, discharges, and projected inundation zones.

This monsoon, however, India issued flood alerts concerning the Tawi and Sutlej rivers. But instead of using the PIC, the notifications were sent via the Indian High Commission in Islamabad.

These alerts were skeletal, often containing little more than a “high flood” classification, leaving Pakistani authorities to guess at the discharge volumes and timings.

Former Federal Flood Commissioner Ahmed Kamal voiced frustration at this vagueness: “The Indian side is just providing the information in a very generic way by stating only the flood classification (High Flood) with no specific details on discharge magnitude.”

India insists these alerts are acts of goodwill rather than treaty obligations, citing its declaration of abeyance. Its media has portrayed them as evidence of New Delhi’s “humanitarian face” despite strained ties.

‘Weaponisation’

Experts, however, warn that bypassing the PIC undermines the treaty’s institutional framework and risks turning flood management into a political instrument.

Abdul Basit, a former high commissioner to India, observed: “India’s move to notify the floods through diplomatic channels carried a threefold message – to the domestic audience, it signaled that New Delhi would show no flexibility on the issue of suspension of the IWT; to Pakistan, it conveyed that its pressure for the treaty’s revival would be ineffective; and to the world, it projected that India had acted on humanitarian grounds, showcasing a humane and considerate side despite prevailing tensions.”

On the ground, the human toll has been severe. Punjab’s Narowal district, one of the worst affected, has seen extensive displacement and destruction of crops and homes. Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal, visiting his inundated constituency, accused New Delhi of aggravating the disaster.

“It appears India had deliberately accumulated water and released it in massive volumes to inflict severe damage on Pakistan. The weaponisation of water and its use as a tool of aggression must be condemned, though climate change had also played a role. Had India cooperated with Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty to manage this crisis, the scale of devastation could have been mitigated,” he said.

Islamabad, for its part, has continued to honour the treaty’s mechanisms despite rising tensions.

Water politics

On Wednesday, Pakistan issued its own flood alerts for the Ravi, Sutlej, and Chenab rivers using the traditional channel of the Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters – the very route India has chosen to sideline. This contrast underscores a broader reality that while India frames its limited notifications as moral gestures, Pakistan is striving to preserve the institutional framework that for decades allowed both countries to prepare for and sometimes avert monsoon catastrophes.

The implications go far beyond the immediate floods. Article IV para 8 of the IWT, along with Annexure F, clearly mandate advance notification, mutual consultation, and data sharing to avoid material damage across borders.

By placing the treaty’s provisions in abeyance, India risks setting a precedent where water becomes another arena of political manoeuvring. This is especially perilous in an era of intensifying climate change, when glacial melt and erratic monsoons are increasing both the frequency and severity of floods.

The question now is not only whether the Indus Waters Treaty can withstand this political storm, but also what the cost of its erosion will be for the millions living along the Indus basin. Floods do not respect borders and their destruction is indiscriminate. When vital data is withheld or diluted for political signalling, it is farmers, villagers, and urban dwellers downstream who pay the price through lost crops, submerged homes, and forced displacement.

Published in Dawn, August 28th, 2025

from The Dawn News - Home https://ift.tt/DU3FN6k