Submit your Article

Neeraj Singh Manhas currently serves as the special advisor for South Asia at the Parley Policy Initiative, Republic of Korea, and is a subject matter expert at the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. He is also a non-resident visiting senior scholar at the Centre for National Security Studies, and an Editorial Board Member for World Water Policy, journal published by (WILEY-Scopus, Elsevier). He closely follows South Asia’s water and river geopolitics. ApEx talked to him about India’s decision to suspend the Indus Water Treaty and its implications for Pakistan and South Asia.

How does the suspension of the IWT affect Pakistan?

The Indus Waters Treaty has been crucial for Pakistan, as it regulates the flow of water from the Indus River and its tributaries, which are vital to Pakistan’s agricultural and energy sectors. Under the treaty, Pakistan was granted exclusive rights over the waters of three western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—while India was allowed to use the waters of the eastern rivers. With India’s suspension of the treaty, Pakistan faces the possibility of having its water supply disrupted, which could lead to severe consequences for its agricultural output, as over 90 percent of Pakistan’s water needs are met by the Indus River. Eighty percent of Pakistan’s agricultural land—around 16m hectares—depends on water from the Indus system. 

Also, this system supplies water to over 237m Pakistanis. The major cities like Karachi, Lahore, and Multan get their water directly from this system. However, 25 percent of Pakistan’s GDP depends on this water, as that share of national income comes from agriculture. The agricultural sector supports 68 percent of Pakistan’s rural households—whose livelihoods are now under threat. Additionally, water shortages could affect hydroelectric power production, which contributes significantly to Pakistan's energy generation. The economic and environmental implications could be disastrous, especially for Pakistan’s rural population, which depends on these rivers for irrigation. This suspension risks destabilizing Pakistan’s food security and overall economy, especially as the country grapples with existing resource shortages.

What are the potential environmental and economic consequences for Pakistan?

The potential environmental and economic consequences for Pakistan are grave, as the Indus River system is not just a source of water but a lifeline for the country’s economy. With Pakistan relying on these rivers for nearly 70 percent of its total water supply, any disruption could lead to significant water shortages, especially in the agricultural sector, which employs a substantial portion of the population. The immediate effect would be felt in irrigation, with crops failing due to insufficient water. 

Additionally, Pakistan’s hydroelectric plants, which rely on the flow of water from the Indus and its tributaries, would face a decrease in power generation, exacerbating the already critical energy crisis. On the environmental side, lower water availability could lead to the degradation of ecosystems, affecting wetlands and biodiversity that depend on consistent water flow. Economically, this could lead to food shortages, price hikes, and social unrest, especially as millions of people depend on these resources for their livelihood.

How has Pakistan responded to the suspension?

Pakistan’s response to India’s suspension of the IWT has been one of strong condemnation. Pakistani officials have rejected India’s accusations and denied any involvement in the Pahalgam attack. They have labelled India’s move as ‘cowardly’ and ‘immature’, claiming that it is an inappropriate and politically charged reaction that violates the spirit of the treaty. 

Pakistan’s foreign minister has called for an international response, urging global stakeholders to condemn India’s actions and mediate the dispute. The Pakistani government has warned of potential retaliation, emphasizing that such moves could escalate tensions further, potentially leading to military or diplomatic consequences. Given the sensitivity surrounding water issues in the region and the shared nature of the Indus River system, Pakistan fears that this could lead to long-term instability in the region. While Pakistan stresses that the treaty should remain intact, it has also warned that India’s actions could undermine future cooperation on regional water-sharing arrangements.

What are the broader implications for regional stability?

The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty signals a worrying escalation in Indo-Pakistani relations, with far-reaching implications for regional stability. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed countries, and any escalation in tensions over the treaty could lead to further militarization of the conflict. The suspension not only undermines the environmental and economic cooperation that the treaty represents but also exacerbates an already fragile relationship between the two nations. The history of territorial disputes, especially over Kashmir, complicates any diplomatic efforts to resolve the water dispute. The disruption of such a critical agreement could lead to an arms race or proxy conflicts, further destabilizing South Asia. It also risks undermining international efforts to mediate and foster cooperation in the region, with the potential to draw in external actors, including major powers and international organizations like the United Nations, which could get involved to prevent further escalation.

Is there a pathway to de-escalate this crisis?

While the situation remains tense, there is a potential pathway to de-escalation, although it would require significant diplomatic effort from both sides. The role of international organizations, such as the World Bank, which was instrumental in brokering the original treaty in 1960, could be pivotal in facilitating dialogue between India and Pakistan. Both nations need to demonstrate a commitment to peace, moving away from retaliatory measures and focusing on finding a solution that ensures equitable water distribution. One possible avenue could involve third-party mediation, with the World Bank or the United Nations acting as facilitators for negotiations. Additionally, confidence-building measures, such as the exchange of information about water usage and infrastructure development, could help to rebuild trust. However, this would require both countries to prioritize long-term cooperation over short-term political gains. The resolution of the crisis will depend not only on diplomatic negotiations but also on both countries recognizing the importance of the treaty for regional peace and stability.

Nepal and India have intensified their diplomatic engagements over the past few months. The surge in high-level ministerial visits and agreements underscores a pragmatic approach taken by the two countries to boost economic, environmental and security partnerships while navigating existing challenges.

Within this short span, two senior Indian ministers visited Nepal, while three Nepali ministers traveled to India for talks. Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba’s discussions with India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar in New Delhi focused on political and economic collaboration, while Minister for Forest Ain Bahadur Shahi Thakuri’s meeting with his Indian counterpart focused on transboundary environmental conservation. During Minister for Water Supplies Pradeep Yadav’s visit to New Delhi, the two countries signed an agreement expanding cooperation in water resources management, sanitation and hygiene. The two countries have expressed commitment to address water scarcity and improve public health through joint infrastructure projects and knowledge-sharing.

Meanwhile, India’s Minister for Power Manohar Lal Khattar’s visit focused on cross-border electricity trade and hydropower development. Officials of Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) and Power Grid Corporation of India signed an MoU to advance two critical trans-border transmission lines in the presence of Khattar and Energy Minister Deepak Khadka. Complementing this, a recent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in agricultural science and technology, signed by Agriculture Minister Ramnath Adhikari and India’s Minister for Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Shivraj Singh Chouhan in Kathmandu aims to enhance food security and sustainable farming through joint research and innovation. Security and trade ties have also seen progress. The Nepal-India Joint Working Group and director general-level talks addressed border management, cross-border crime and trade facilitation which are crucial for Nepal’s reliance on Indian ports. India recently renewed Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certifications for over 100 industries, which will help resume long-stalled export of products like cement, steel and agro products to India. 

There are some concerning issues as well. Nepal harbors resentment with India over delayed Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) Report and handling of border issues. Recent allegations of India’s support for Nepal’s pro-monarchy movement, though swiftly denied by India, highlight the delicate nature of Nepal’s domestic politics. India’s wariness of Nepal’s engagement with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) adds another layer of complexity. Despite these tensions, both nations have prioritized economic and developmental partnerships. Such partnerships are crucial for Nepal given withdrawal of the USAID support and impending graduation from Least Developed Country (LDC) status, which could impact international development support to Nepal.  

The one-on-one meeting between Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the BIMSTEC meeting earlier this month and Wednesday’s telephone conversation between the two leaders following the terrorist attack in Pahalgam of Kashmir signal a commitment to strengthening ties. While Oli’s potential visit to New Delhi remains uncertain, this pragmatic approach—emphasizing mutual benefits while gradually addressing contentious issues—is paving a promising path for Nepal-India relations.

The ongoing teachers’ protest has compelled Minister for Education, Science, and Technology, Bidya Bhattarai, to resign. On one hand, she was under mounting pressure to address the demands of teachers; on the other, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli was reportedly dissatisfied with her performance.

A clear divergence emerged between the interests of the ruling CPN-UML and Bhattarai’s method of handling pressing issues in the education sector. With her background as a university lecturer, Bhattarai was seen as a competent and knowledgeable figure to lead the ministry. Yet, despite her credentials, tensions within the government and on the streets reached a breaking point. For over three weeks, secondary school teachers have been staging protests in central Kathmandu, severely disrupting the education of thousands of students in public schools. These demonstrations have also caused traffic congestion, significantly affecting transportation systems and local businesses.

In response to the leadership vacuum, senior UML leader Raghuji Pant has been nominated as the new Education Minister. According to government sources, fulfilling the teachers’ demands is no easy task. They argue that some grievances can only be addressed once the long-awaited Education Bill is passed by Parliament. However, the unrest is not limited to teachers. Numerous groups and organizations have taken to the streets to voice their own frustrations and demands.

Resident doctors are rallying for fair allowances, local government staff are staging demonstrations, and in recent years, victims of cooperatives and loan sharks have also mobilized. The cumulative pressure from these groups poses a serious challenge for the government. How these compounding issues will be handled remains uncertain, but many fear the situation may escalate beyond control if not addressed promptly.

Within the Nepali Congress (NC), internal efforts are reportedly underway to topple the current government, despite party president Sher Bahadur Deuba's preference for maintaining the coalition. Other senior leaders—such as Purna Bahadur Khadka, Shekhar Koirala, Gagan Kumar Thapa and their allies—are advocating for a renewed alliance with the CPN (Maoist Center). This week, Khadka publicly criticized the coalition’s performance, emphasizing the urgent need to improve the government’s working style.

At the same time, Maoist Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal has made it clear that his priority is to form a coalition with the NC. Political analysts suggest that Dahal is maneuvering to increase his party’s bargaining power with both NC and UML in the context of upcoming electoral alliances. If negotiations with the NC fail, Dahal is expected to revive the idea of a leftist coalition as a strategic alternative.

Amid these political shifts, the government is preparing to unveil new policy programs and the national budget. However, these initiatives could spark further friction between coalition partners NC and UML. Historically, budget and policy disagreements between ruling parties have often become flashpoints that lead to instability or even regime change.

Meanwhile, the recent wave of pro-monarchy protests appears to have lost steam. Last week, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party staged demonstrations in Kathmandu and several locations outside the valley. However, the low turnout has prompted the party to reconsider its strategy before organizing further events. Following the arrest of Durga Prasai, his supporters have remained largely absent from the streets. Dozens of them have been detained for alleged involvement in the arson and vandalism that occurred on March 28.

After nearly a month of house arrest, Nava Raj Subedi has returned to lead the pro-monarchy movement, but the campaign seems to have lost momentum. Former king Gyanendra Shah has reportedly urged calm, expressing concern that further violence could trigger government retaliation against him. According to sources, Gyanendra has instructed his followers to keep protests peaceful. However, the extent of coordination between him and pro-monarchy groups remains murky. As the movement weakens, mainstream political parties and the government have noticeably softened their tone regarding the former monarch.

In other political developments, top leaders from UML, NC, and Maoist Center convened this week to discuss critical matters, including the stalled transitional justice appointments and pending education legislation. Despite the meeting, no substantial progress was made.

Nevertheless, the appointment process for the transitional justice mechanism has resumed. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Oli publicly addressed rumors of an internal challenge to his leadership, allegedly spearheaded by former President Bidya Devi Bhandari. Speaking at a public function, Oli asserted that the UML is unimaginable without him, boldly claiming that he “won’t grow old” for another 20 to 25 years.

In recent weeks, Bhandari has become increasingly vocal about her political ambitions, stating that numerous party leaders are urging her to take the helm. Dissatisfaction with Oli’s leadership has led some senior UML figures to shift their allegiance to Bhandari, who is emerging as a new power center within the party. “Some people are raising concerns about my age and health, but no one should imagine this party without me,” Oli recently declared.

In a move to reassert control and respond to public criticism, Oli has announced the formation of a high-level good governance committee, which he will personally lead. While the initiative is ostensibly aimed at combating corruption and restoring good governance, public skepticism about its efficacy remains high. Governance has been one of the biggest casualties of the NC-UML coalition, with many key decisions delayed due to inter-party disagreements. One such example is the government’s failure to appoint a new governor for the Nepal Rastra Bank, a deadlock rooted in internal political differences.

Meanwhile, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) continues to face criticism for lacking a clear ideological direction. This criticism intensified when the party opted to remain silent during the recent wave of pro-monarchy protests. However, this week, senior RSP leader Swarnim Wagle outlined the party’s position on several national issues during a public event outside the valley. He stated that the RSP supports scrapping the current federal structure, arguing that it imposes an unsustainable financial burden on the state. He also proposed a downsizing of both federal and provincial legislatures—positions that clearly suggest the party is not fully aligned with the principles enshrined in the 2015 constitution.

In a related development, two Madhes-based parties—the Janamat Party and the Nagarik Unmukti Party—are preparing for a merger. CK Raut is expected to take the helm of the unified political force, signaling a new chapter in regional political realignment.

April 25 marks the 10th anniversary of the deadly earthquake that struck Nepal killing nearly 9,000 people, injuring 22,000 and making more than a half million people homeless. It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded to have hit the Himalayan country.

On April 25, 2015, when a 7.8 magnitude earthquake shook Nepal’s ground at 11:56 AM, the epicenter in Barpak village of Gorkha district suffered the most immediately. At least 72 people lost their lives from the village alone, while all the houses were damaged in the disaster except a few.

10 years later, Barpak doesn’t look like a village anymore. With completion of reconstruction, Barpak looks like a bustling town in recent times as all traditional stone roofed houses are replaced by tall concrete symmetrical buildings and a good flow of tourists.

In contrast, the neighboring village Laprak which housed the largest integrated settlement looks deserted even after a decade of the disaster. Initially, though Barpak was chosen for the site of the new settlement, the plan couldn’t be executed due to several reasons which provided Laprak a chance to shine and be the “model village.”  

However, the settlement built by the Non-Resident Nepali Association consisting of 604 houses (including additionally built) in Gupsi Pakha are in sorry state, with many locals themselves regarding it as a ghost village. Its difficult to spot people in the surrounding which was actually expected to be a vibrant and exemplary village of more than 2000 people.

The new settlement, located at around 2700 meters from the sea level, was chosen considering the geological studies and accessibility. Unfortunately, it failed to address the needs and expectations of indigenous communities of the mountain region. As a result, there are locks in doors and grasses at the entrance, holes on roofs, fading colors in two-storey buildings and deep silence around the settlement.

 According to Kishan Gurung, Ward-4 Chairman of Dharche Rural Municipality, out of the total houses, only 50 are filled with families who run homestays and hotels, while 50 other families keep migrating between the old village and the new settlement. “We are preparing to connect electricity from the national line, manage supply of drinking water and construct a gravelled road linking Barpak to Laprak. I am hopeful that villagers will move to the new settlement someday and Laprak will be known as a model village again.”