The debate surrounding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has once again brought South Asia’s competing narratives into sharp focus. Much of the discussion has centred on whether India, following the Pahalgam terror attack, was justified in placing the treaty in abeyance.
Critics argue that doing so weakens international law and sets a dangerous precedent. Supporters contend that no agreement can function indefinitely in the complete absence of trust.
For Bangladesh, which has long advocated rules-based regional cooperation while navigating its own complex water-sharing issues, this topic of debate deserves a more nuanced examination.
The real issue is not simply whether treaties should be honoured. They should. The more important question is what sustains a treaty over decades and whether credibility flows only from legal compliance or also from the broader conduct of the states involved.
The answer matters because international agreements are not self-executing documents. They survive because the parties continue to believe that cooperation remains worthwhile.
Few treaties illustrate this better than the Indus Waters Treaty.
Signed in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank, the treaty has often been described as one of the world’s most durable water-sharing agreements. That reputation is not undeserved.
It survived the wars of 1965, 1971, and 1999, periods of intense diplomatic hostility, military crises, and repeated cross-border tensions that would have collapsed many other bilateral arrangements.
For more than six decades, India continued to implement the treaty despite deteriorating political relations. Meetings of commissioners continued, technical exchanges took place, and water flows remained largely unaffected even during periods when diplomatic dialogue had virtually ceased. That consistency strengthened India’s image as a country willing to separate long-term international commitments from immediate political disputes.
This record is significant because credibility in international affairs is accumulated slowly. It is earned through repeated demonstrations that commitments will be honoured even when doing so is politically inconvenient.
However, credibility is not a one-way obligation.
International agreements rest upon an implicit assumption that both parties remain committed to the broader conditions that made cooperation possible in the first place. When those conditions fundamentally change, governments inevitably reassess whether existing frameworks continue to serve their original purpose.
The strategic landscape of South Asia today is profoundly different from that of 1960.
Climate change has altered river systems and accelerated glacial retreat. Populations have multiplied several times over, placing unprecedented pressure on freshwater resources.
Technological capabilities for water management have advanced dramatically. Above all, the security environment has transformed. Terrorism, now one of the defining challenges of regional stability, barely figured in strategic thinking when the treaty was negotiated.
Successive Indian governments, irrespective of political affiliation, nevertheless continued to uphold the agreement through decades marked by major terrorist attacks and recurring security crises. That long record makes New Delhi’s present position difficult to dismiss as a sudden abandonment of international norms. Rather, it reflects the argument that extraordinary circumstances can force a reassessment of how cooperation is structured.
One need not endorse every aspect of India’s decision to recognize that the context has evolved substantially.
This distinction is particularly relevant for Bangladesh.
Dhaka has consistently supported peaceful dispute resolution, adherence to international law, and predictable diplomacy. At the same time, Bangladesh has also demonstrated that treaties are strongest when both parties invest continuously in mutual confidence.
The peaceful implementation of the Land Boundary Agreement between India and Bangladesh remains one of South Asia’s most successful diplomatic achievements precisely because it was built on sustained political trust rather than legal formalities alone.
The same applies to growing cooperation in energy, transport, border management, digital connectivity, and trade. These initiatives have flourished not because disagreements disappeared, but because both governments continued to view cooperation as strategically beneficial.
Trust, in other words, created space for compromise.
This principle extends well beyond South Asia.
Around the world, international agreements have evolved to reflect changing geopolitical realities. Environmental accords have been revised, defence arrangements updated, trade agreements renegotiated and maritime frameworks modernized. Such adaptations have often strengthened rather than weakened international cooperation.
Treaties that remain frozen despite fundamentally altered circumstances risk becoming sources of friction rather than instruments of stability.
The debate over the Indus Waters Treaty should therefore not be reduced to a simplistic choice between respecting international law and abandoning it. A more meaningful discussion asks how international agreements can remain effective in an era shaped by climate stress, technological transformation, and persistent security threats.
That conversation is increasingly relevant across the entire subcontinent.
Bangladesh itself faces mounting challenges from rising sea levels, erratic monsoon patterns, sedimentation, upstream river management, and increasing demand for freshwater. Future regional water governance will require greater scientific cooperation, improved data-sharing, adaptive management, and stronger institutional mechanisms than those envisioned six decades ago.
Legal continuity remains important, but resilience increasingly depends upon flexibility and confidence among participating states.
India’s broader diplomatic record also deserves consideration. Whether in development partnerships, humanitarian assistance, infrastructure financing, vaccine diplomacy, maritime security, or regional connectivity, India has increasingly projected itself as a reliable partner whose policies exhibit continuity across changing political circumstances.
This accumulated credibility explains why many countries continue to deepen strategic cooperation with India despite policy disagreements. Reliability is not measured by the absence of difficult decisions; it is measured by whether partners believe those decisions emerge from a consistent and transparent strategic framework.
The Indus Waters Treaty debate should be viewed through that broader lens.
For Bangladesh, whose prosperity depends upon a stable and cooperative neighbourhood, the most valuable lesson is that treaties cannot survive on legal clauses alone. They require trust, reciprocity, and confidence that all parties remain committed to the wider objectives the agreement was designed to serve.
India’s greatest strategic advantage has never rested solely on its size, economy, or military capabilities. It has increasingly rested on credibility earned over decades through institutional continuity and sustained international engagement.
That credibility does not place India above scrutiny. Nor does it exempt any country from its international responsibilities. But it does provide important context when evaluating difficult policy decisions taken in an evolving security environment.
Ultimately, the future of South Asia will depend not merely on preserving agreements signed in the past, but on ensuring they continue to reflect contemporary realities while reinforcing the trust on which lasting regional cooperation depends.
In diplomacy, credibility is rarely built overnight. It is earned over decades and preserved by demonstrating that international commitments remain anchored in both responsibility and strategic realism.
Rishi Suri is the chief editor at The Daily Milap, one of India’s oldest and largest Urdu newspapers.