After the false flag operation in Pahalgam on 22nd April 2025, India took two of the most imprudent steps against Pakistan. Firstly, on April 23rd, India confirmed that the IWT would be held in abeyance, effective immediately. The suspension is among the several steps India has taken against Pakistan, accusing it of backing cross-border terrorism – a charge Islamabad flatly denies. Other than suspension, India launched attacks inside Pakistan, challenging its sovereignty and territorial integrity. In response to this attack, India lost six aircraft, including at least three Rafale fighters.
Simultaneously, India falsely and without any evidence accused Pakistan of being involved. Regardless, Pakistan offered an investigation, which India refused. Pakistan tried diplomatic means to solve the issue; however, India responded non-diplomatically- leading to a military conflict between the two. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar called the Indian steps “immature and hasty” in a television interview. While the Prime Minister of Pakistan declared that any attempt by India to “stop or divert the flow of water” will be considered as an “act of war.” Regardless of Pakistan’s declaration, the suspension itself is a dangerous move in international affairs.
Bashir Ali Abbas, in his article “Water as leverage: India’s IWT suspension is here to stay,” argues that the treaty will remain suspended. However, this is not as easy as it is said. The suspension of the treaty can result in a huge conflict between the two rival states. Water has been a major issue between India and Pakistan since the subcontinent was partitioned. It is evident that India has always been violating the treaty provisions; therefore, the IWT functions as a rare success story. Once again, it has suspended the treaty against its provisions. The treaty does not have any clause through which it can be suspended unilaterally. The treaty itself stipulates that it can only be modified or terminated through mutual agreement between the two countries, whereas in this case, Pakistan has not consented to a withdrawal from the treaty. India’s unilateral suspension is fraught with peril, legally unsound, and undermines one of the strongest examples of transboundary water cooperation in the world. The sudden termination of IWT does not just breach international treaties but can also pose threats to the overall stability of the region.
According to Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), treaties have to be followed in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). Article 62, which admits to withdrawal by a material change of circumstances, is narrowly construed in international law, and the change of circumstances that have been foreseeable or are of an internal political matter. Utilizing the legal doctrine that terrorism sponsored by Pakistan has caused this change is a misapplication of this legal principle, since issues of terrorism have been a reality since the late nineties, and it is not enough to change the essence of obligations of a water-sharing arrangement.
Bashir Ali Abbas states that “India has sent at least four notices to Pakistan, asking to renegotiate key provisions of the Treaty with a particular focus on its dispute resolution mechanism. India’s immediate concerns related to the World Bank initiating two parallel tracks of dispute resolution, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and the Neutral Expert (NE), while India preferred only the NE. It seems like India, under its false flag operation, wanted to suspend IWT as a larger aim. India has always built projects that are against the treaty provisions, to name a few- Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects. India has always preferred NE to solve the disputes, as its decisions are nonbinding, whereas the decisions of PCA are binding. India, with its wrongdoings, prefers a non-binding mechanism so it can continue what it has done best – violate treaty provisions.
Once again, PCA has come into play. The court has given a ruling in favor of Pakistan. On 8th August 2025, it issued a binding Supplemental Award on the interpretation of the IWT. The court has declared that India should “let flow” the water of western rivers for Pakistan’s unrestricted use. Furthermore, the court has ordered that the court’s awards are binding on both parties. This award comes as a big win for Pakistan and a major loss for India and its undiplomatic channels to tackle the issue. Before this ruling, in June 2025, PCA held that India could not unilaterally hold the treaty in abeyance. As a response, India declared that it did not recognize the court or its decisions. Additionally, PCA said that India had not participated in the arbitration proceedings and had repeatedly objected to the court’s competence.
Whereas on Pakistan’s behalf, a representative from the Foreign Office (FO) said Pakistan welcomed the PCA’s landmark decision, stating “Pakistan Welcomes the Award Rendered by the Court of Arbitration on the Issues of General Interpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)”. Later, the government of Pakistan issued a similar statement, welcoming the court’s award. This decision of the PCA limits India’s ability to manipulate river flow and mandates strict adherence to treatment criteria. Additionally, the decision protects Pakistan’s water rights. This situation shows how Pakistan has been reinforcing the principle of cooperative dispute resolution under international law, whereas India attacked Pakistan based on just accusation and no proof. Pakistan remains fully committed to the implementation of the treaty rules. Pakistan urges that “The high priority, at this point, is that India and Pakistan find a way back to a meaningful dialogue, including on the application of the Indus Waters Treaty”. Further, Pakistan calls on India to resume normal treaty functioning and faithful implementation of the court’s decisions, ensuring that water remains a source of cooperation, not conflict in South Asia.
Be the first to comment