Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Senior Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), delivered a talk on his recently published book Trial by Water: Indus Basin and India–Pakistan Relations (Penguin Random House India, 2025) during the Monday Morning Meeting held on 8 December 2025. The session was moderated by Dr. Ashish Shukla, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA with Dr. Smruti S. Pattanaik, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA serving as the discussant. The meeting was attended by scholars and researchers of the institute.

Executive Summary

The session offered a rich exploration of the historical, technical, and political forces that shaped the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Opening the discussion, moderator Dr. Ashish Shukla set the analytical framework by raising pointed questions on the securitisation of water, the design and limitations of institutional mechanisms, and the evolving scope of India’s river-development projects. His remarks steered the conversation toward the deeper strategic undercurrents embedded in the Treaty.

As discussant, Dr. Smruti S. Pattanaik broadened the lens by situating the book within the wider landscape of South Asian water-sharing arrangements. She contrasted the relative durability of the IWT with the more fragile or politically constrained agreements elsewhere in the region, highlighting what sets the Indus Basin apart. The ensuing conversation probed how domestic politics, shifting climatic and demographic pressures, and the necessity of sustained technical cooperation will shape the next phase of India–Pakistan water relations.

Detailed Report

Dr. Ashish Shukla opened the session by noting that Trial by Water: Indus Basin and India–Pakistan Relations dismantles several persistent myths surrounding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). He observed that public debates often flatten the complexities of the Indus Basin’s hydrology and the broader geopolitical forces that shaped the Treaty, turning water into an emotive symbol linked with strategy, sovereignty, and identity in South Asia. Calling it “a book for all seasons,” he framed four key questions to guide the discussion: whether water in South Asia is being increasingly securitised; whether India is losing confidence in institutional mechanisms; whether water can realistically serve as a punitive instrument against Pakistan; and finally, whether India is merely completing pending projects on the western rivers or preparing to conceive new ones within the Treaty’s ambit.

In his remarks, Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha explained that the book is the product of a three-year research effort and builds on his earlier work, Indus Basin Uninterrupted (2021). He emphasised that contemporary historical research on the Indus must be inherently interdisciplinary, drawing not only from diplomatic history but from anthropology, political science, engineering, climate studies, and demography. This, he argued, is essential to escape the narrow, linear narratives dominant in earlier accounts. One of the book’s most significant contributions, he observed, is its integration of engineering perspectives into the political history of the Indus Basin. Dr. Sinha highlighted how civil engineers and technical officers—particularly those in the Public Works Departments of pre-Partition and post-Partition Punjab—played a decisive yet largely overlooked role in designing headworks, shaping canal networks, and influencing the very contours of the Punjab Boundary. Their technical assessments and administrative decisions, he noted, ultimately positioned India advantageously by ensuring control over the Ferozepur headworks on the Sutlej, a critical element in the early water politics of Partition.

Dr. Sinha structured his presentation around several core questions that animate the book.
First, on whether the IWT was inevitable, he pointed out that the hydrological unity of the basin contrasted sharply with the political division of 1947, making some form of agreement unavoidable. “Had there been no Partition,” he argued, “there would have been no treaty.”
Second, on claims that the treaty is “unfair” to India, he termed this a “central paradox”: both India and Pakistan insist they received the lesser bargain, even though the Treaty followed a decade of intense negotiations. If it were truly unjust, he asked, why would seasoned negotiators have accepted it after detailed scrutiny?                                                                                     Third, on who negotiated the treaty, Dr. Sinha stressed that the IWT was negotiated not by diplomats but principally by engineers—an unusual feature that profoundly shaped the Treaty’s design. He situated the negotiations within the strategic environment of the 1950s: the Cold War, the Eisenhower administration’s geopolitical calculations, and the World Bank’s dual role as financier and facilitator. He underscored the significance of the Bank’s nearly one-billion-dollar financial package, which proved decisive in pushing the treaty to completion.

Dr. Sinha drew attention to the Treaty’s “no-exit clause,” noting that while it may appear extraordinary by current diplomatic standards, it was intentionally crafted by the engineers who foresaw volatile political relations. This built-in constraint, he argued, is one reason for the Treaty’s durability through wars and crises. He concluded by emphasising the importance of “reading history without anger”—a phrase he often invokes in his water diplomacy work—warning against selective citations that distort context. For scholars, he urged deep archival engagement and careful contextualisation rather than reliance on isolated statements.

The discussion also touched upon leadership styles and pivotal historical moments, with particular attention to Jawaharlal Nehru’s role in shaping India’s early water diplomacy. Dr. Sinha referred to what he termed Nehru’s “main character syndrome”—not in a pejorative sense, but to describe Nehru’s instinctive tendency to place himself at the centre of major national debates and developmental initiatives. This disposition, he noted, stemmed from Nehru’s belief that the Prime Minister must personally steer India’s modernisation project, whether in foreign policy, river valley development, or national planning. Nehru’s hands-on involvement significantly influenced the political climate in which the Treaty was negotiated, as well as the philosophical and developmental assumptions underlying India’s approach to the Indus waters. Dr. Sinha recalled the charged Parliamentary debate of November 1960, where parliamentarians questioned the Treaty’s long-term consequences, revealing the tension between idealism, pragmatism, and the developmental priorities of early independent India. He underlined the importance of appreciating the psychological and philosophical dispositions of the period in which the Treaty was negotiated.

As discussant, Dr. Smruti S. Pattanaik situated Trial by Water within the wider ecosystem of South Asian water-sharing agreements. She noted that the Indus often overshadows equally complex river issues in the eastern subcontinent—especially the Ganga and its tributaries. She asked why the IWT continues to attract enduring domestic and international attention, while other treaties, including the 1996 Ganges Treaty and water agreements with Nepal, have struggled to advance or inspire similar institutional depth. She pointed out that several of these agreements remain only partly operationalised, with incomplete projects and ambiguous benefit-sharing outcomes.

Dr. Pattanaik underlined how water distribution is inseparable from domestic politics: Pakistan’s tendency to externalise water challenges, India’s state-level grievances across Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, and West Bengal, and the political sensitivities that accompany hydrological variability. The comparison with the Ganges Treaty also highlighted how review clauses, absent in the IWT, create a different political dynamic in eastern South Asia.

The discussion underscored the enduring relevance of the Indus Waters Treaty—an agreement that has survived wars, crises, and shifting political leaderships. Its durability, participants noted, stems from its technocratic foundations, third-party mediation, and the structural bind of the no-exit clause. At the same time, new pressures—climate variability, demographic change, technological upgrades, and domestic political contestation—have altered the Treaty’s operational environment. While the idea of using water as a punitive instrument periodically resurfaces, the panel agreed that the long-term stability of the basin depends on predictable institutional arrangements, technical solutions, and measured legal pathways rather than coercive strategies.

Participants also noted that Trial by Water plays an important role in reshaping contemporary debates on the Indus by weaving together historical research, engineering analysis, and strategic insight. It challenges long-standing assumptions about fairness, magnanimity, and the nature of India–Pakistan engagement, encouraging a more grounded and evidence-based understanding of the basin.

Questions and Comments

Participants debated the balance between idealism and pragmatism in India’s strategic culture, particularly during Nehru’s tenure, and whether India has effectively leveraged its upper-riparian position amid Pakistan’s recurring legal and diplomatic manoeuvres.

Several comments emphasised the need to evaluate the treaty through the lens of the 1950s rather than contemporary expectations. Securing the eastern rivers for Indian Punjab—despite high financial costs—was a strategic imperative at the time, and the treaty accomplished this objective.

Questions were raised about the rationale behind the no-exit clause, its long-term implications, and the risks associated with neutral expert proceedings and arbitration. Concerns were expressed that bypassing specific mechanisms could undermine confidence in the institutional framework as a whole.

The session also noted that the book has attracted considerable attention in Pakistan, including among diplomats and policy practitioners—an indication that the Indus basin continues to serve as a critical lens for examining the broader contours of India–Pakistan relations.

The Report has been prepared by Dr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst and Ms. Srotaswini Hazarika, Intern, NTS Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.