Rivers held hostage

Publishing date: 06 January 2026

Published in: DAWN

INDIA’S claim that it has placed the Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance” is not just provocative, it is legally meaningless. As Pakistan’s Indus Waters Commissioner has noted, international law does not recognise such a concept. Treaties are either in force, suspended by mutual consent, lawfully terminated, or breached. What New Delhi has tried to invent is a legal grey zone that does not exist. The IWT, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, is designed to ensure that water disputes between Pakistan and India are insulated from political crises. It endured the 1965 and 1971 wars, the Kargil conflict, and decades of hostility because its drafters recognised that water could not be held hostage to politics. That principle is written into the treaty itself, which lays out clear, binding procedures for resolving disputes. India’s April 2025 move followed the deadly Pahalgam attack in occupied Kashmir, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan without producing publicly verifiable evidence. Using that incident to justify suspending cooperation under a water treaty crosses a dangerous line.

Global response has not favoured India’s position. In June, the Permanent Court of Arbitration made clear that India has no legal authority to unilaterally hold the IWT in abeyance. Foreign legal experts and policy analysts have warned that weaponising water disputes risks setting a dangerous precedent, especially in a climate-stressed region. Pakistan’s response has been firm but measured. Officials have warned that any attempt to obstruct Pakistan’s lawful water share would amount to an act of war. That may seem a strong phrase, but it is one rooted in reality. The western rivers are not a bargaining chip. They sustain agriculture, power generation and livelihoods for millions. Any disruption, even under the guise of ‘non-cooperation’, carries existential implications. Equally worrying is India’s pattern of procedural obstruction, such as delaying data sharing, bypassing agreed forums, and seeking to reframe technical disputes as political leverage. Such conduct erodes trust not only between Islamabad and New Delhi, but also among international guarantors who see the IWT as a model for transboundary water governance. Pakistan is right to pursue a legal and diplomatic course. The goal is not confrontation, but compliance. Treaties exist to restrain power, not to be reinterpreted at will. At a time of climate stress, the IWT remains vital. But only if its rules are respected.