Tensions between Pakistan and India are at a simmer after a deadly terrorist attack in Uri in the Indian-held Kashmir; 18 Indian soldiers died. New Delhi blamed this attack on Pakistan and started looking for ways and means to hurt Pakistan. One of the crucial matters that can cause serious repercussions for Islamabad is the suspension of water flowing from India to Pakistan. Reportedly, India is planning to “maximise” the amount of water it uses including by accelerating building of new hydropower plants, along three rivers that flow into Pakistan. Furthermore, in order to mount pressure on Pakistan, the Indian side has decided to suspend the upcoming meeting of the Indus water commissioners of the two countries, which are held twice a year. The exclusive use of certain rivers was divided between India and Pakistan under a treaty mediated by the World Bank. After the Indus Water Treaty was signed in 1960 by Pakistan and India, rights over the eastern and western rivers were divided between the two countries. According to the treaty, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej were allocated to India, and Pakistan was given the western rivers, Jhelum, Chenab and Indus. The Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan is considered one of the great success stories of water diplomacy, especially as it has survived the India-Pakistan wars of 1965, 1971, 1999, and much bad blood during and after the wars. The treaty is facing the danger of abrogation on part of India as Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that “blood and water cannot flow together” referring to the militants’ attack in Kashmir. However, this is not a solution to the longstanding conflict. Such statements only worsen relations. It is not easy to abrogate an international treaty on the basis of assumptions. From Pakistan’s side, Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz has said that Islamabad would treat it as “an act of war” if India revoked the Indus Water Treaty. The spirit of jingoism is high on both sides. When the Indian authorities talk about the suspension of water to Pakistani territories, they actually threaten lives of millions of people. It is not that water from these rivers is in use by militants; rather, poor farmers, fishermen and other persons also rely on water related professions and earn their bread and butter. Another thing to be considered is that a sanction like the closure of water could be the last option. It can only be used if both sides have exhausted all other options and taken all necessary measures to ease tension. In this perspective, both sides need to exercise restraint to avoid further conflicts as war or warlike tactics are not in the interests of both states. Wisdom calls for peaceful solution of all outstanding issues. In this regard, media in both countries carries great responsibility, and so far media has mostly played a negative role, as it is busy in presenting stuff according to its own whims and desires. There is a pick and choose policy in the presentation of news. Instead of playing a role in easing tension, media negatively portrays certain portions of statements causing a further rift in the ‘rival’ states. *