Source: Modern Diplomacy   Published: 2025-05-03

By Zamir Awan

Founding Chair GSRRA, Sinologist, Diplomat, Editor, Analyst, Advisor

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, has long stood as a model of water-sharing between two hostile neighbors—India and Pakistan. Brokered by the World Bank, the treaty has survived multiple wars and decades of political hostility, making it one of the most successful examples of transboundary water cooperation in modern history.

Yet today, this historic treaty faces its gravest challenge. India’s recent signals to unilaterally suspend or renegotiate the IWT are not only a violation of international law but also an act of aggression against the people of Pakistan, whose lives and livelihoods depend on the waters of the Indus River system.

India’s move, framed as a retaliatory measure following the Pahalgam incident, is both illogical and illegitimate. The Pahalgam attack was not a cross-border act of terrorism, as India claims, but more likely a false flag operation meant to justify aggressive posturing and distract from India’s own internal crises, including growing insurgencies, communal unrest, and systematic discrimination against minorities under the leadership of Narendra Modi.

The Indus Waters Treaty: A Brief Overview

The IWT was signed on September 19, 1960, between Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan, with the World Bank acting as a third-party guarantor. Under the treaty:

• Pakistan was granted exclusive rights over the western rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.

• India retained control over the eastern rivers: Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej.

• Both countries were allowed limited usage rights on the other’s waters for specific purposes like irrigation, hydropower, and domestic needs under strict guidelines.

• The World Bank played a vital role—not only in facilitating negotiations but also in guaranteeing dispute resolution mechanisms, including arbitration panels and neutral expert reviews.

India’s Unilateral Actions: Violation of International Law

India’s threats to unilaterally “modify” or withdraw from the IWT amount to a blatant violation of international law, particularly the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which bars unilateral withdrawal from such legally binding agreements unless both parties agree or in case of material breach.

The Pahalgam incident, which India hastily linked to Pakistan without evidence, has been used as a pretext. Yet, these narrative lacks credibility. Pakistan strongly condemns the attack and categorically denies involvement. Instead, it has called for a neutral international investigation, which India has refused—raising serious doubts about the authenticity of India’s claims.

The Reality Behind the Pahalgam Incident

The Pahalgam incident must be understood in the broader context of India’s internal unrest. With over 150 active insurgencies across Indian states—including in Assam, Manipur, Chhattisgarh, and Kashmir—India’s social fabric is under tremendous strain. The Modi government’s fascist policies, targeting Muslims, Christians, Dalits, Sikhs, and tribal communities, have only fueled dissent and rebellion.

It is highly plausible that the Pahalgam incident was a reaction to India’s discriminatory and repressive governance, and not the result of external interference. The Modi regime’s urge to blame Pakistan serves dual purposes: it diverts attention from domestic failures and manufactures a pretext for escalation.

Implications of Suspending the IWT

India’s attempt to suspend or abrogate the IWT would have catastrophic consequences for Pakistan:

• Agricultural Devastation: Pakistan’s agriculture, which supports nearly 70% of its population, depends heavily on the waters of the Indus basin. Any disruption would affect food security and livelihoods.

• Hydropower Shortage: Several hydropower projects depend on consistent river flows. Interruptions would worsen Pakistan’s energy crisis.

• Environmental Disaster: Reduced river flow would increase desertification in Sindh and Balochistan, leading to long-term ecological damage.

• Humanitarian Crisis: Water scarcity could lead to displacement, health crises, and unrest across the country.

Pakistan’s Response: Legal and Diplomatic Pathways

Despite the existential threat posed by India’s reckless behavior, Pakistan remains committed to peace. However, Pakistan reserves the right to respond decisively if India weaponizes water—a basic human right.

Legal and diplomatic responses available to Pakistan include:

International Arbitration:

• Invoke the dispute resolution mechanisms under the IWT, including referring the case to a Court of Arbitration or a Neutral Expert, with the support of the World Bank.

• File complaints at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under customary international law and the Vienna Convention.

United Nations Intervention:

• Raise the matter at the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly to expose India’s actions as a threat to international peace and stability.

• Seek intervention from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to highlight the humanitarian consequences.

Global Diplomacy:

• Engage with China, the United States, European Union, Russia, and Gulf States to build pressure on India.

• Mobilize the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to advocate for restraint and mediation.

World Bank Engagement:

Reaffirm the World Bank’s responsibility as a guarantor of the treaty, demanding its active role in preventing treaty violations.

Can Pakistan Use Force? A Responsible Restraint

• While the IWT is a lifeline for Pakistan, Islamabad does not believe in war as the first option. Pakistan is fully aware of the disastrous implications of a military conflict between two nuclear-armed states.

• Using force would be a last resort, reserved only for an existential crisis, such as the complete blockage of river waters, which could amount to an act of war under international law. Even then, Pakistan would exhaust all legal, diplomatic, and peaceful means first.

• Pakistan’s strategic posture remains defensive, responsible, and peace-oriented—unlike India’s aggressive and expansionist attitude.

India’s Recklessness: A Threat to Regional and Global Peace

• Under Prime Minister Modi, India has exhibited a consistent pattern of intolerance, authoritarianism, and militarism. From revoking Kashmir’s special status to brutalizing minorities, and now threatening Pakistan’s access to water, India is fast becoming a regional bully.

• The international community must recognize that India’s actions—whether in Kashmir, Manipur, or on the water front—are part of a broader ultranationalist agenda aimed at establishing regional hegemony through coercion and violence.

• India’s refusal to participate in peaceful dialogue, and its pattern of false flag operations and war hysteria, reveals its true intentions: not peace, but dominance.

Pakistan’s Struggle for Peace and Justice

• Pakistan stands at a crossroads—but also stands firm. Our commitment is to peace, coexistence, and sustainable development. We understand that mutual cooperation, not confrontation, is the way forward for the 1.7 billion people of South Asia.

• India must not be allowed to undermine peace through aggressive and unilateral actions. The Indus Waters Treaty must be upheld—not just as a legal obligation but as a symbol of regional hope.

• Pakistan’s message is clear: We will not provoke war, but we will not bow to injustice. We urge the global community to act—to restrain India, support legal mechanisms, and protect regional peace.

• Let us not allow water, the source of life, to become the cause of death and destruction. Let wisdom prevail over arrogance, and justice triumph over tyranny.