Politics

India Halts Indus Waters Treaty, Closes Attari Border After Pahalgam Attack

India suspends the Indus Waters Treaty, closes Attari border, and expels Pakistani diplomats after the Pahalgam attack. Full breakdown of retaliatory measures, Pakistan’s NSC meeting, and global responses.

Published

12 hours ago

April 23, 2025

Vishal

India escalated tensions with Pakistan on Wednesday, suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and shutting down the Attari border checkpoint following a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir. The move, labeled a “water warfare” act by Pakistan, has triggered a diplomatic crisis, with Islamabad convening an emergency National Security Committee (NSC) meeting and vowing to defend its rights “legally and politically.”

Key Developments

Indus Waters Treaty Suspended: India halts the 1960 water-sharing pact, accusing Pakistan of cross-border terrorism.
Attari Border Closed: Trade and travel suspended; Pakistani nationals under Saarc visas given 48 hours to exit India.
Diplomatic Expulsions: Defence staff at Pakistan’s High Commission expelled; embassy staff capped at 30.
Global Reactions: US, China, EU condemn the attack; Trump pledges “full support” to India.

Pahalgam Attack: What Happened?

The attack in Pahalgam, a scenic tourist hub in Indian-administered Kashmir, left 26 dead and 17 injured after gunmen targeted male tourists. The assailants, allegedly linked to the “Resistance Front,” sparked India’s swift retaliation:

India’s Retaliatory Measures:
- IWT Suspension: Citing Pakistan’s “support for cross-border terrorism,” India freezes the treaty until Islamabad “credibly abjures” backing militants.
- Saarc Visa Cancelled: Pakistani nationals under the scheme must leave India within 48 hours.
- Diplomatic Downgrade: Defence attachés expelled; embassy staff reduced to 30 by May 1.

Pakistan’s Response:

PM Shehbaz Sharif convened an NSC meeting to address India’s “impulsive” actions.
FM Ishaq Dar dismissed India’s claims as “knee-jerk” and politically motivated.
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif condemned the “false flag operation,” urging a “considered” response.

Indus Waters Treaty: Why This Matters

The IWT, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, governs water sharing of the Indus River system. India’s suspension marks the first time the treaty has been halted, even during past wars. Experts warn:

Implications for Pakistan: Threatens water supply to Punjab and Sindh’s agricultural heartlands.
Legal Violation: Experts argue unilateral suspension breaches Article XII, requiring mutual termination.

Pakistan’s Countermeasures:

Power Minister Awais Leghari called it “water warfare,” vowing to defend rights globally.
Senator Sherry Rehman accused India of “weaponizing water,” citing the treaty’s survival through past conflicts.

Global Reactions & Diplomatic Fallout

US Support: Trump assured Modi of “full support,” while VP JD Vance condemned the “horrific attack.”
China & EU: Offered condolences but urged restraint; EU pledged solidarity with India.
UN: Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the violence, calling for accountability.

India’s Domestic Pressure:

PM Modi cut short a Saudi visit, vowing a “loud and clear” response.
Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticized the government’s “hollow claims” on Kashmir’s peace.

Don't Miss

Sarah Palin’s Defamation Retrial Ends in Favor of The New York Times

Click to comment

Politics

Sarah Palin’s Defamation Retrial Ends in Favor of The New York Times

Published

1 day ago

April 23, 2025

Vishal

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin leaves Manhattan federal court after testifying in her defamation retrial against The New York Times on April 21, 2025. (Yuki Iwamura/AP)

A federal jury delivered a decisive blow to Sarah Palin on Tuesday, ruling against her defamation lawsuit in a retrial against The New York Times. The verdict marks the second failed legal attempt by the former Alaska governor to hold the paper accountable for a 2017 editorial she claimed falsely linked her to a mass shooting.

Key Takeaways

A jury rejected Palin’s claim that a 2017 NYT editorial defamed her by suggesting her PAC incited violence.
The retrial followed a 2023 appeals court ruling that revived the case after initial dismissal.
The New York Times defended the verdict as a win for press freedom, while Palin criticized media integrity on social media.
The case tested protections for publishers under the landmark Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court ruling.

Inside the Trial & Reactions

The retrial centered on a 2017 editorial that incorrectly tied Palin’s political action committee (PAC) to a 2011 Tucson shooting targeting former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Though the Times corrected the article within hours, Palin argued the damage to her reputation was irreversible.

In a statement, The New York Times said:

“This decision reaffirms that publishers are not liable for honest mistakes. We thank the jurors for their careful work.”

Palin fired back on X (formerly Twitter), writing:

“But please keep fighting for integrity in media. I’ll keep asking the press to quit making things up.”

The Legal Battle: A Timeline

Palin first sued the Times in 2017, alleging defamation over the editorial’s claim that her PAC used “crosshairs” imagery targeting Giffords and other Democrats. While the Times swiftly corrected the error, Palin pursued legal action for years, culminating in this retrial ordered by an appeals court in 2023.

Conservatives initially saw the case as a potential challenge to Times v. Sullivan—the 1964 ruling requiring public figures to prove “actual malice” to win defamation suits. However, courts ruled Palin missed her window to contest the standard, leaving the precedent intact.

Why This Verdict Matters

The ruling arrives amid growing scrutiny of media accountability and free speech protections. With public trust in news outlets at historic lows and political leaders increasingly attacking press freedoms, the Times’ victory reinforces legal safeguards for journalists.

Legal experts argue the case highlights the balance between accountability and free expression. “Publishers must correct errors, but this verdict shows courts still prioritize protecting journalism from frivolous lawsuits,” said a First Amendment attorney

The Bigger Picture: Media Under Fire

The Times’ win contrasts with a rising tide of legal and rhetorical attacks on U.S. media. Former President Trump’s “enemy of the people” rhetoric and ongoing efforts to weaken Times v. Sullivan have put publishers on high alert. Yet this verdict signals courts remain a critical line of defense for press freedom.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.