From Abeyance to Abrogation — Why the Indus Waters Treaty Now Needs a Law…..by KBS Sidhu

The Union Government’s vision of interlinking India’s rivers has opened a larger question closer to home: should India’s approach to the Indus river system now move from an executive decision to a permanent legislative framework?

This question assumes particular significance after Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while addressing the Southern Zonal Council meeting on August 20, spoke of the possibility of interconnecting the Brahmaputra with the Cauvery. The idea reflects an ambitious national vision of using India’s water resources more strategically.

But there is already an immediate application of this vision in the north.

In a letter addressed to Home Minister Amit Shah, former Punjab Special Chief Secretary Karan Bir Singh Sidhu, IAS (Retd.), has argued that the principles behind such river interlinking should first be applied to the Indus basin. Writing as a private citizen, Sidhu has called for the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960, to be formally abrogated through an Act of Parliament and for a statutory authority to be established to manage the Western Rivers.

The Indus Waters Treaty has been in abeyance since the Cabinet Committee on Security decided to suspend its operation on April 23, 2025, following the Pahalgam terror attack.

Sidhu’s argument is that the present position should not remain confined to an executive decision. An abeyance, however significant, is ultimately a decision of the executive and could theoretically be altered by another executive decision.

A parliamentary law, on the other hand, would provide a statutory framework and establish a clearer domestic legal basis for India’s future water policy.

This, according to Sidhu, is the missing link between the government’s present position and a long-term strategy for the country’s water resources.

The Western Rivers question

The Indus Waters Treaty broadly divided the river system between India and Pakistan, giving India unrestricted use of the Eastern Rivers—Ravi, Beas and Sutlej—while allocating the Western Rivers—Indus, Jhelum and Chenab primarily to Pakistan, subject to specified Indian uses.

Sidhu’s proposal focuses on bringing the Western Rivers into a new institutional framework.

He has suggested the creation of a National Authority for Western Rivers, empowered to plan, finance and oversee projects involving the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, including their possible linkage with the Ravi and Beas.

The proposed institutional model draws inspiration from the Bhakra Beas Management Board, which has played a central role in managing the Eastern River system for decades.

Chenab-Beas link: An idea becoming infrastructure?

One of the strongest arguments in Sidhu’s letter is that the debate is no longer purely theoretical.

He has pointed to the Centre’s approval in May 2026 of the 8.7-kilometre Chenab-Beas Link Tunnel near Koksar, which is intended to carry water from the Chenab into the Beas system.

For Sidhu, this is significant because it represents a Western River being connected to an Eastern River—an idea that goes directly to the larger question of how India’s water resources can be managed and utilised.

He has described the Koksar tunnel as an example of the kind of interlinking that the Home Minister spoke about in the context of the Brahmaputra and Cauvery.

The larger point is simple: if India is thinking about interlinking rivers across the length of the country, it must also examine the possibilities within the Indus basin.

Two draft Bills

Sidhu has gone beyond making a policy suggestion. He has enclosed two draft legislative proposals with his letter to the Home Minister.

One is the proposed Indus Waters Treaty (Abrogation) and Western Rivers Development Authority Bill, 2026. The other is a proposed Constitution (Amendment) Bill dealing with the constitutional provisions that may be required for the proposed authority and the treaty-related changes.

Sidhu has made it clear that these drafts are being offered for consideration and possible use by the government and are not presented as an attempt to claim ownership of government policy.

A larger question for Punjab

For Punjab, the issue carries particular significance.

The state’s agriculture and economy have long been closely connected with the Ravi and Beas river systems. Any major change in the management or utilisation of the Western Rivers could therefore have implications extending beyond international relations to agriculture, irrigation, water security and regional development.

That is why the debate needs to go beyond political rhetoric.

If river interlinking is to become a major component of India’s water strategy, it will require institutions, legislation, financing mechanisms, environmental assessment and clear frameworks for managing competing demands.

The question before policymakers is therefore not simply whether rivers should be linked.

It is whether India should now create a permanent legal and institutional architecture for its water future.

From abeyance to a new water policy

Sidhu’s intervention seeks to place that question before the Union Government at a time when water security is becoming increasingly important.

The government’s decision on the Indus Waters Treaty in 2025 marked a significant shift in India’s approach. The proposed legislation would take that shift a step further by attempting to create a permanent statutory framework for the Western Rivers.

Whether the Centre accepts, modifies or sets aside the proposal remains to be seen.

But one thing is clear: the debate over India’s rivers is no longer only about water-sharing treaties. It is increasingly about water security, infrastructure, river interlinking and India’s long-term strategic control over its water resources.

And if Amit Shah’s vision of connecting India’s rivers represents the larger national ambition, Sidhu’s proposal asks a pointed question: Why look only to the Brahmaputra and Cauvery when the Indus basin itself presents an unfinished opportunity?

August 21, 2026