What happens when water becomes a weapon? After a tragic attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam valley left 26 tourists dead on Tuesday, India wasted no time blaming Pakistan-without investigation, without evidence, and most worryingly, without restraint. The government’s knee-jerk decision to “hold in abeyance” the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) marks a dangerous escalation: the weaponization of a climate-sensitive, legally binding water-sharing agreement to score political points. For decades, the IWT stood out as a rare success story in South Asia’s otherwise volatile diplomatic landscape. Brokered by the World Bank in 1960, the treaty divided the Indus Basin’s rivers between India and Pakistan and explicitly prohibited unilateral withdrawal or suspension. Article 12(4) is unambiguous: amendments or termination require mutual written consent. It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a binding law. Yet, in the heat of a political crisis, India’s Cabinet Committee on Security unilaterally declared the IWT suspended “until Pakistan abjures support for cross-border terrorism”-a phrase that, by now, has become New Delhi’s reflexive justification for punitive actions. Within hours, diplomatic ties were downgraded, and borders sealed. All this, despite the absence of an independent probe into the Pahalgam attack. Even as the Resistance Front, reportedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility, as always, the jump to “Pakistan did it” served more as a convenient political salve than a credible conclusion. Islamabad, for its part, has rejected the accusations outright, calling the massacre a premeditated false-flag operation. Officials cited the use of military-grade weaponry and encrypted communications as signs of orchestration; suggesting the timing was no coincidence, but part of a deliberate effort to sabotage the IWT itself. Whether or not one subscribes to this view, the bigger concern remains: India’s response bypasses due process and upends decades of negotiated water diplomacy. This sets a reckless precedent. In a region where climate-induced stress on shared water resources is only growing, the deliberate politicization of a water treaty could unravel more than just bilateral trust. It could catalyze a humanitarian crisis. International law is clear. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties permits treaty suspension only in cases of material breach. But who gets to decide what constitutes such a breach? If India claims the right to unilaterally suspend the IWT on accusations alone, Pakistan could invoke the same framework to walk away from the Shimla Agreement-or worse. Once one party tosses the rulebook, the other is no longer obligated to play fair. This is not a time for impulse-driven diplomacy. Treaties do not bend to the will of tragedy. If they do, they break. *