A potential water war is in the making after India suspended the Indus Water Treaty.
The decision came in retaliation to terror attacks in Kashmir, which were followed by a four-day conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
Pakistan says, if not reversed, it amounts to an act of war. India’s response – blood and water cannot flow together.
What is the Indus Water Treaty?
The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960 governs how the six rivers that flow through India are shared.
While India gets unrestricted use of the three eastern rivers – the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej, Pakistan is allotted the lion’s share of the three western rivers – the Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum.
The average annual flow of the western rivers (135.6 million acre ft) is more than four times that of the eastern ones (32.6 million acre ft).
Though India can use a fraction of the waters of the western rivers for irrigation and hydropower, it has to eventually release all the waters downstream.
Image: Salal Dam on the Chenab River in Kashmir
Surinder Thapa, former chief engineer of the Baglihar Dam, who has been associated with the Indus Water Treaty Commission over the past 20 years, told Sky News: “It’s totally a biased treaty as it was not negotiated on minute technical parameters as there is unequal share of the volume of water.
“India has suffered and is still struggling with its water projects. Some have even closed because they have become economically unviable.”
How India could respond
India demanded a modification of the treaty under Article XII in 2023, to take into consideration its changing demographics, water and energy requirements, climate change disaster mitigation, and cross-border terrorism.
The treaty has provisions for modification under certain circumstances – but there are no clauses for unilateral exit or suspension. India is taking its position as a legal decision under international law.
It cannot stop water from flowing across the border, as it lacks storage infrastructure and the capacity to divert large amounts of water.
But there are ways in which India could potentially harm its neighbour – by not sharing data on the volume of water in the rivers, withholding flow or releasing or even tampering with the volume, that could affect agriculture, power generation, consumption, and even cause floods in Pakistan.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:09
Explained: India-Pakistan conflict
Pakistan’s reliance on the network
More than 80% of Pakistan’s irrigated land is watered by the Indus network.
Agriculture is its backbone, employing more than half its population and contributing almost a quarter of its GDP.
It is already one of the most water-stressed countries in the world. Disruption to its rivers would have massive effects on its economy and people.
Across the border in Pakistan, farmers are worried about the uncertainty of its neighbour.
Muhammad Nawaz, a farmer from Nikaiyan Da Kot in Gujrat, Pakistan, told Sky News: “Our government must respond, we already have nothing, and if they stop giving us water, then what is left for us.”
Hassan Ullah, who lives in the village of Kot Nikka, said: “India is violating the agreements made with the government. Pakistan should take up this issue at the international level.”
Since the suspension, India has carried out flushing and desilting of its dams – helping to increase its storage and making its hydropower projects more efficient.
Mr Thapa said: “For all these years we cooperated 120% with Pakistan but they kept raising irrelevant technical questions only to delay our projects – causing huge financial losses.
“We don’t want to bleed people in Pakistan, but we are left with no option but to teach them a lesson of how much sacrifice we have made.
“We need to make huge storage dams and navigation projects with no checks by anyone anymore.”
Recent India-Pakistan conflict
The fraught relationship between the two nuclear-armed neighbours worried the world when both countries attacked each other. Dozens of people were killed and hundreds of livelihoods were destroyed on both sides of the border.
The village of Kot Maira in Akhnur district, just a couple of miles from the Pakistan border, has been one of the most targeted in the region.
Image: The village of Kot Maira, just miles away from India’s border with Pakistan
Bari Ram, 59, had a miraculous escape. He left his home with his son just a few minutes before artillery shells destroyed it, killing all his cattle.
He told Sky News: “This happened after the ceasefire, everything is destroyed. We can’t sleep as we don’t know when the next bomb will fall.”
In a hospital room in Jammu, 46-year-old Rameez is having his wounds dressed. He’s not completely out of danger as shrapnel is still embedded in his liver and ribs. He’s already lost a lot of blood and doctors don’t want to operate on him just yet.
Image: Rameez, 46
But it’s not the physical pain that traumatises him as much as the loss of his twins, 12-year-olds Zoya and Zain.
They got caught up in heavy Pakistani shelling when they tried to escape from their home.
Image: Twins Zain and Zoya, 12, who were killed during the recent conflict
Image: Rameez (left), his wife, and children
Their aunt Maria Khan told Sky News: “The bombs fell behind them while they were getting out, Zoya was hit at the back of her head, her ribs were broken and she was bleeding.
“My brother picked her up and within seconds she died in his arms. He saw a neighbour trying to resuscitate Zain, but he had already died.”
Image: Maria Khan, Zoya and Zain’s aunt
Unable to hold back tears, she added: “That’s why us who live on the border areas want only peace. We know and experience the effects of real war. Our innocent children have died. This pain is unbearable and unreplaceable.”
For the moment, the precarious ceasefirebetween the countries is holding. But for so many it has come too late.
Mr Zelenskyy has warned he has reservations about the plan, telling Ukrainians in a solemn speech: “Now is one of the most difficult days in our history.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:42
Russia-Ukraine peace proposal explained
But Russian President Vladimir Putin has cautiously welcomed the US proposals – and said they “could form the basis for a final peace settlement”.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Mr Trump appeared to dismiss Mr Zelenskyy’s concerns: “He’ll have to like it… at some point, he’s going to have to accept something.”
The US president went on to reference their now-infamous Oval Office meeting back in February, where he told Ukraine‘s leader “you don’t have the cards”.
Kyiv has been given until Thursday to accept the peace plan – but this deadline could be extended to finalise the terms.
The Trump peace plan is nothing of the sort. It takes Russian demands and presents them as peace proposals, in what is effectively a surrender ultimatum for Ukraine.
If accepted, it would reward armed aggression. The principle that even de facto borders cannot be changed by force – sacrosanct since World War Two for very good reasons – will have been trampled on at the behest of the leader of the free world.
According to Reuters, European nations including the UK, France and Germany are now working on a counterproposal with Kyiv.
EU leaders, who were not consulted about the plan, will hold a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in South Africa on Saturday.
Sir Keir Starmer, who spoke to Mr Zelenskyy by phone on Friday, has warned “Russia pretends to be serious about peace, but their actions never live up to their words”.
Ahead of the talks, the prime minister said: “Ukraine has been ready to negotiate for months, while Russia has stalled and continued its murderous rampage. That is why we must all work together, with both the US and Ukraine, to secure a just and lasting peace once and for all. We will continue to coordinate closely with Washington and Kyiv to achieve that.
“However, we cannot simply wait for peace, we must strain every sinew to secure it. We must cut off Putin’s finance flows by ending our reliance on Russian gas. It won’t be easy, but it’s the right thing to do.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:30
Inside the Ukraine peace plan
The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said: “We all want this war to end, but how it ends matters. Russia has no legal right whatsoever to any concessions from the country it invaded. This is a very dangerous moment for us all.”
‘Ukraine may be facing an extremely difficult decision’
During his address, Mr Zelenskyy said he would not betray Ukraine’s national interest – but warned dilemmas lie ahead.
He added: “Either a loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner. Either accepting a complicated list of 28 demands or enduring an extremely harsh winter, the harshest yet, with all the risks that follow.
“A life without freedom, without dignity, without justice. And all while being asked to trust someone who has already attacked us twice.”
Image: Pics: Reuters
Washington has reportedly threatened to cut off intelligence sharing and weapons supplies if Kyiv refuses to accept the deal.
The US-backed proposal would require Ukraine to withdraw from territory it still controls in eastern provinces that Russia claims to have annexed – with Russia giving up smaller amounts of land it holds in other regions.
Ukraine would also be permanently barred from joining NATO, and its armed forces would be capped at 600,000 troops.
Sanctions against Russia would also be gradually lifted, with Moscow invited back into the G8 and frozen assets pooled into an investment fund.
“Terrible”, “weird”, “peculiar” and “baffling” – some of the adjectives being levelled by observers at the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine.
The 28-point proposal was cooked up between Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev without European and Ukrainian involvement.
It effectively dresses up Russian demands as a peace proposal. Demands first made by Russia at the high watermark of its invasion in 2022, before defeats forced it to retreat from much of Ukraine.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:38
Ukrainian support for peace plan ‘very much in doubt’
The suspicion is Mr Witkoff and Mr Dmitriev conspired together to choose this moment to put even more pressure on the Ukrainian president.
Perversely, though, it may help him.
There has been universal condemnation and outrage in Kyiv at the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Rivals have little choice but to rally around the wartime Ukrainian leader as he faces such unreasonable demands.
The genesis of this plan is unclear.
Was it born from Donald Trump’s overinflated belief in his peacemaking abilities? His overrated Gaza ceasefire plan attracted lavish praise from world leaders, but now seems mired in deepening difficulty.
The fear is Mr Trump’s team are finding ways to allow him to walk away from this conflict altogether, blaming Ukrainian intransigence for the failure of his diplomacy.
Mr Trump has already ended financial support for Ukraine, acting as an arms dealer instead, selling weapons to Europe to pass on to the invaded democracy.
If he were to take away military intelligence support too, Ukraine would be blind to the kind of attacks that in recent days have killed scores of civilians.
Europe and Ukraine cannot reject the plan entirely and risk alienating Mr Trump.
They will play for time and hope against all the evidence he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin and put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war, rather than force Ukraine to surrender instead.
The Eurovision Song Contest is changing its voting system, following allegations of “interference” by Israel’s government this year.
Israeli singer Yuval Raphael received the largest number of votes from the public in the contest in May, ultimately finishing as runner-up after the jury votes were counted.
But a number of broadcasters raised concerns about Israel’s result.
After the final, Irish broadcaster RTE requested a breakdown in voting numbers from contest organiser the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), while Spain’s public broadcaster, Radio Television Espanola (RTVE), called for a “complete review” of the voting system to avoid “external interference”.
In September, Dutch public broadcaster AVROTROS said it could no longer justify Israel‘s participation in the contest, due to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.
It went on to say there had been “proven interference by the Israeli government during the last edition of the Song Contest, with the event being used as a political instrument”. The statement did not elaborate on the means of “interference”.
Sky News has contacted the Israeli government for comment.
More on Eurovision
Related Topics:
In early December, the EBU will hold its winter general assembly, with members due to consider the changes, and if not satisfied, vote on Israel’s participation.
Key changes to next year’s competition include:
• Clearer rules around promotion of artists and their songs • Cap on audience voting halved • The return of professional juries to semi-finals • Enhanced security safeguards
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:59
Will Eurovision boycott Israel?
Sanctions threat
The EBU said the tightening of rules around promotion was to “discourage disproportionate promotion campaigns… particularly when undertaken or supported by third parties, including governments or governmental agencies”.
It said that “any attempts to unduly influence the results will lead to sanctions”.
Contest director Martin Green said “no broadcaster or artist may now directly engage with or support campaigns by third parties – including governments or their agencies – that could distort the vote”.
He said the reduction in the number of votes that can be made online, or via SMS or phone call, from 20 to 10 was “designed to encourage more balanced participation”.
He said that “although the number of votes previously allowed did not unduly influence the results of previous contests, there were concerns expressed by participating broadcasters and fans alike”.
Professional juries in semi-finals – and younger jurors
It was also announced that professional juries in the semi-finals would be restored for the first time since 2022, with an expansion to the range of professions from which jurors can be chosen.
The EBU said this will give roughly 50-50 percentage weight between audience and jury votes.
At least two jurors aged 18-25 will be present in every jury, to reflect the appeal of the contest with younger audiences.
Also mentioned were enhanced technical safeguards designed to “protect the contest from suspicious or coordinated voting activity” and strengthen security systems that “monitor, detect and prevent fraudulent patterns”.
Politics making itself heard over Europop lyrics
Mr Green said that the neutrality and integrity of the competition is of “paramount importance” to the EBU, its members, and audiences, adding that the event “should remain a neutral space and must not be instrumentalised”.
Image: Israel’s 2024 representative, Eden Golan. Pic: AP
Russia was banned from the competition in 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine.
Israel has competed in Eurovision for more than 50 years and won four times, but there have been ongoing calls to block their participation over the conduct of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in the Hamas-Israel war.
Israel denies targeting civilians in Gaza and has said it is being unfairly demonised abroad.
In September, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, and Slovenia threatened to withdraw their participation in Eurovision unless Israel is excluded from the competition.
There were also demonstrations against Israel’s inclusion in Basel, Switzerland, when the 2025 competition took place.
‘Step in right direction’
Responding to the changes, Iceland’s official broadcaster RUV told Sky News they were “a step in the right direction”, and they would be discussing them with their “sister stations in the Nordic countries” ahead of the EBU meeting in December.
Ireland’s official broadcaster RTE told Sky News: “Clearly, events in the Middle East are unfolding day by day. As previously confirmed by the EBU, the issue of participation in the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest has been included on the agenda of the EBU Executive Board’s ordinary Winter General Assembly.”
Sky News has also contacted the official broadcaster for the Netherlands (AVROTROS), Spain (RTVE), Slovenia (RTVSLO), and Israel (Kan) for comment.
The chief executive of Kan, Golan Yochpaz, has previously said the event should not become political and that there is “no reason” why Israel should not be part of it.
Image: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Pic: Reuters
Netanyahu praised Israeli entrant
Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israel’s 2025 Eurovision entrant Yuval Raphael she had brought the country “a lot of honour” after she finished in second place, adding “you’re the real winner. Statistically, it’s true… You entered the hearts of a huge portion of the public in Europe.”
The year before he told entrant Eden Golan: “I saw that you received almost the highest number of votes from the public and this is the most important thing, not from the judges but from the public, and you held Israel’s head up high in Europe.”
In October, a ceasefire deal was put in place, aimed at bringing an end to the two-year war in the Middle East.
The war began when Hamas stormed into Israel on October 7 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostage.
Israel invaded Gaza in retaliation, with airstrikes and ground assaults devastating much of the territory and killing more than 67,000, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
Its figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants, but it says around half of those killed were women and children.
The world’s largest live music event, next year’s contest will be held in Vienna, Austria, in May and will celebrate 70 years of Eurovision.