The recent incident of terrorism at Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 tourists tragically lost their lives, has reignited severe geopolitical tensions between India and Pakistan, with India unilaterally suspending the Indus Waters Treaty.
India swiftly blamed Pakistan for orchestrating the violence, immediately imposing punitive diplomatic and economic measures against Islamabad.
Foremost among these was India’s unilateral suspension of the historic Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, an action that Pakistan contends not only violates international law but also equates to a declaration of war.
The strategic context provides clarity on India’s potential objectives behind blaming Pakistan for the Pahalgam attack.
Domestically, India is grappling with mounting political pressures and internal dissent, especially regarding Kashmir’s disputed status.
A narrative attributing violence to external actors conveniently diverts attention from domestic policy shortcomings and unites public opinion against a common external threat—Pakistan.
This is not India’s first time doing this, but we have to understand the larger gains it wants to achieve.
Internationally, branding Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism enables India to diplomatically isolate its neighbor and pressure global actors to withdraw support from Islamabad.
Simultaneously, it justifies India’s aggressive military and political measures in India-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IOJK), including the revocation of Article 370 and harsh security crackdowns that suppress dissent.
This narrative also facilitates stronger and unpopular decisions in the name of security.
India’s swift blame on Pakistan for the Pahalgam attack, without transparent investigation, breaches international law, notably Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits threats or use of force against another state’s sovereignty.
Retaliatory actions like border closures and diplomatic expulsions further violate this norm.
Under Article 51, self-defence is justified only after a clear armed attack—something India has not conclusively proven.
Such baseless accusations heighten tensions, risk conflict and undermine the principles of responsible state behaviour, posing a serious threat to regional peace and stability.
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) suspension is the most alarming among India’s retaliatory measures.
Under the Treaty brokered by the World Bank in 1960, India controls the waters of the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej), while Pakistan retains rights over the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab).
Crucially, Article XII(4) of the Treaty clearly states that it cannot be unilaterally terminated or altered by either party without mutual agreement.
India’s suspension disregards this explicit provision, constituting a fundamental breach.
Additionally, according to international water laws—particularly the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1997)—lower riparian states like Pakistan have legally protected rights.
Articles 5 and 7 of this Convention affirm equitable use and prevention of significant harm, underscoring that depriving Pakistan of its rightful water resources constitutes aggression, tantamount to a declaration of hostility or war under international conventions.
Historically, false-flag accusations or manipulated events have often precipitated conflicts.
Examples include Germany’s Gleiwitz incident (1939), where fabricated attacks were used as a pretext for invading Poland, and the Yugoslav Operation Labrador (1991), designed to implicate Croatian forces falsely.
More recently, cyber operations such as Russia’s Olympic Destroyer attack (2018) highlighted contemporary false attributions.
These historical cases demonstrate how misinformation or fabricated accusations can dangerously escalate international crises.
In response, affected states have frequently appealed to international forums, particularly the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN Security Council, or diplomatic negotiations to defuse tension and seek redress.
Transparent, internationally overseen investigations have also served as tools for accused states to counter unfounded claims and re-establish their diplomatic legitimacy.
