India, Sept. 1 -- The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack highlights India's assertive new outlook.The IWT was a historical blunder from the early years of our Independence. It was ostensibly signed as a symbol of goodwill by Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru and Pakistan President Ayub Khan at Karachi on September 19, 1960. The IWT in principle agreed to the distribution of the Indus system in the ratio of 80:20 between Pakistan and India. Apart from Pakistan getting a lion's share, the treaty allocated the waters of the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) for the use of India and the waters of the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) for the use of Pakistan. Further, a 10-year transition period was agreed upon, during which Pakistan would construct a system of link canals on the western rivers for loss of access to the eastern rivers and this would be paid for by India. In order to compensate for the loss of four million acres in Pakistan that were irrigated by the three eastern rivers, it was suggested that canal replacement works would be constructed in Pakistan and funded by India. The cost of these replacement works was estimated at Rs 83.3 crore, approximately Rs 8,000 crore in today's terms. Further, due to the World Bank's involvement, Pakistan would get grants to the tune of about Rs. 400 crore. India, which required over Rs 100 crore to build its own link canals, would get only Rs 30 crore and that too as loans. Not surprisingly, there was widespread disappointment against the signing of the treaty. On November 30, 1960 while discussing the IWT in Parliament, Harish Chandra Mathur, a Congress Member of Parliament (MP) from Pali, Rajasthan, quoted The Times of India that had made the following observation on the IWT: "Almost on every major point in the dispute, India has yielded to Pakistan's wishes often at the cost of its own interests." The prevailing mood at that time, when the IWT tripartite agreement was signed, was that India had made far too many concessions without extracting anything in return. The feeling echoed by MPs across party lines was that Rajasthan would be the most affected by this decision. Some members pointed out that, in 1948, when India had signed certain inter-dominion agreements, Pakistan wanted the water which was being supplied from canals in India to not be stopped straightway and that they should be allowed some time for this. Therefore, the massive capitulation by the Indian government perplexed Nehru's own party members. Nehru however seemed unfazed and derided the members of the House for making an issue out of "a pailful of water". He left saying he had to accompany the Crown Prince and Princess of Japan who were visiting India at that time. After Nehru exited, Atal Bihari Vajpayee pointed out that subsequent to signing the agreement, the president of Pakistan stated that "By accepting the procedure for joint inspection of the river courses, India has, by implication, conceded the principle of joint control extending to the upper region of Chenab and Jhelum, and joint control comprehends joint possession." This interpretation could have severe implications for India. Unsatisfied with Nehru's earlier response, Vajpayee said, "If we talk about establishing goodwill and friendship between the two countries, then my point is that this is not the way to establish goodwill and friendship. If Pakistan says something wrong or makes a wrong demand, then it should be opposed. If this spoils the relations, then we can never build good relations." Six-and-a-half decades later, the decision to put the IWT into abeyance has been a historic decision. India's response while taking this decision clearly states that the obligation to honour a treaty in good faith is fundamental to a treaty and the sustained cross-border terrorism by Pakistan vitiates the atmosphere of good faith. This also reflects in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's overall outlook as he has repeated in multiple fora that "blood and water cannot flow together". India can now develop a fresh perspective keeping in mind our altered population demographics, our agriculture and irrigation needs and further accelerate the development of clean energy to meet our energy transition goals. Our decision on the IWT clearly demonstrates that we are now taking clear-eyed stances and standing up for what has rightfully been ours. After all, a nation shackled to the mistakes of its past walks with chains where it could soar with wings....