India's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) represents a legitimate defence of its interests in the Indus Basin and should be understood as a long-overdue correction of a structurally unequal framework — not an act of aggression, according to a report published in South African newspaper Independent Online.

The assessment was authored by Pradeep Kumar Saxena, former Indian Commissioner for Indus Waters, who argued that India's goodwill under the treaty was systematically exploited over 65 years without reciprocal good faith from Pakistan.

Pakistan's Pattern of Obstruction

Saxena contends that Pakistan has repeatedly weaponised the treaty's dispute resolution provisions — not for genuine grievance redressal, but as a strategic instrument to delay Indian development in Jammu and Kashmir. He noted that virtually every significant hydropower project India proposed on the Western rivers faced formal Pakistani objections, technical challenges, or arbitration referrals.

'Projects including Baglihar, Kishenganga, Pakal Dul, and Tulbul have all been subjected to prolonged Pakistani challenges. In several cases, Pakistan has acknowledged the potential benefits of Indian projects for regulated water flow — including flood moderation — while simultaneously opposing them,' Saxena wrote.

'This pattern reveals that Pakistani objections are not genuinely about treaty compliance; they are about preventing Indian development in Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of the legal merits,' he added.

The 'Water Aggressor' Narrative

According to Saxena, Pakistan has exploited India's consistent compliance to construct and disseminate an international narrative portraying India as a potential 'water aggressor.' Pakistani officials, academics, and diplomatic channels have repeatedly invoked the idea of India 'weaponising water' — citing the very treaty that India has strictly adhered to.

'This narrative — posing the upper riparian as a threat — has proved remarkably effective with international audiences unfamiliar with the treaty's history. Pakistan has used it to generate diplomatic pressure, attract multilateral sympathy, and constrain India's ability to assert its legitimate treaty rights,' Saxena stated.

India's Compliance Record

Saxena emphasised that India has not committed a single violation of the IWT across more than six decades — not during the 1965 war, the 1971 war, the 1999 Kargil conflict, or at any other point. 'India has maintained compliance even as Pakistan has used its territory to conduct state-sponsored terrorism against India,' he noted.

This compliance, he argued, came at enormous cost. India ceded 80 per cent of the Indus waters to Pakistan; paid £62 million (approximately $2.5 billion in present value) to facilitate the agreement; accepted one-sided operational restrictions within its own territory; and upheld the treaty for 65 years through multiple wars and sustained cross-border terrorism.

What India Received in Return

'In return, India has received a Treaty agreed to in good faith that Pakistan uses as a tool of developmental obstruction, a "water war" narrative it deploys internationally with no factual basis, and the permanent underdevelopment of vast tracts of Indian territory,' Saxena wrote.

The report frames India's current IWT action not as a rupture but as a proportionate response to decades of asymmetric obligation — one that India bore unilaterally while Pakistan leveraged the treaty for strategic and diplomatic advantage. How the international community, particularly multilateral institutions, responds to this framing will shape the next phase of the Indus dispute.