Written by Hadia Irfan The ongoing weaponization of waters is not only a political dispute between two states but it also underscores the ...
Written by Hadia Irfan
The ongoing weaponization of waters is not only a political dispute between two states but it also underscores the climate security crisis that poses significant threat to stability, peace and security. It is a wake-up call for the world and requires “collective approach” for the solution.
On 22nd April
2025, the Pahalgam attack in IIOJK took 26 lives. India blamed Pakistan for its
involvement without any investigation and evidence. Not only there is a
diplomatic and economic crackdown, but India has also suspended Indus Waters
Treaty (IWT) of 1960 that has been considered the most successful water-sharing
agreement. According to the transcript available on Ministry of External
Affairs of India official page, Shri Vikram Misri – the foreign secretary –
presented the measures that are decided upon in respond to the terrorist attack
of Pahalgam. The very first point stated that “the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960
will be held in abeyance with
immediate effect, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support
for cross-border terrorism.” Neither International Law recognizes any such
concept of “being held in abeyance” nor does it exist within the legal
framework of the treaty. It’s not a legitimate suspension of Indus Waters
Treaty rather a political statement, although it also suggests suspension of treaty
that can be reinstated.
Indus
Waters Treaty: Back story
The back story of IWT
lies in 1948 Indian aggression to completely stop Eastern rivers flow to
Pakistan for five weeks in order to demand “seigniorage”, payment for water
release, and to push Pakistan into dialogues for Kashmir issue. This resulted
in a temporary Dehli agreement of May 4, 1948. Later on, as a neutral mediator
World Bank (WB) stepped in presenting IWT as a long-term solution with the legal
binding. As of this agreement, Pakistan has rights to 80% of western rivers
(Jehlum, chenab, Indus) and India is allowed to use these waters for
run-of-water projects but for not storage purposes and Pakistan can object
Indian projects on western rivers. While India has control of Eastern rives.
In recent years, India
has been demanding modification in IWT as well. Indian stance is that the
treaty has been limiting Indian developmental projects and the contemporary
climate issue especially intensified water needs require treaty provisions to
be updated. In addition, India opposes the parallel mediation, by Court of
Arbitration and Neutral Expert, on same issue. On the other hand, Pakistan
objects Indian Hydropower Projects (IHP) – as Kishanganga (on Jhelum), Ratle (on Chenab),
Salal Dam Project (on Chenab), Baglihar Hydropower project (on Chenab), Pakal
Dul Project (on Chenab) etc. – and fears potential reduction in water flow
due to these projects leading to water scarcity concerns.
Indian
Unilateral Suspension of IWT:
In context of unilateral
suspension of treaty by India, article 12 of the treaty states that none of the
states can unilaterally make any changes in the agreement, suspend it or
abrogate it. The suspension of the
treaty does not mean that it has been abrogated rather India will not share
hydrological data, that includes precipitation data (amount of snowfall and
rainfall), water flow rate, evaporation and trans evaporation rate, water
quality data (pH level, dissolved oxygen level and chemical composition), with
Pakistan. Besides, there will be no project notifications and no regular
meetings. The suspension will not cause water shortage in short term but can
have mid to long term severe consequences as Pakistan has 14th rank
among top 17 countries with extreme baseline water stress and 3rd
most vulnerable nation with acute water shortage. Along with that, Pakistan
might face extreme electricity shortages as well.
Note worthily, the recent
statement by WB President Mr. Ajay Banga in an exclusive interview with
CNBC-TV18 made it clear that no party to the agreement can unilaterally
suspended or abrogated.
Possibility to Stop
Water!
Pakistan has declared
that any attempt to block or divert water will be considered “an act of war”,
signaling readiness to respond to any aggressive action taken by India.
Besides, India cannot take any of these actions right now as it lacks the required infrastructure as storage dams in order to store water
during monsoon so as to disrupt Pakistan’s flow by taking control of the water,
diversion tunnels and inter-basin tunnel canals for redirecting water in India and coordinated operation of
run-of-river projects for timely
delay of water release to cause water shortages in Pakistan. Additionally, the Himalayan
terrain is extremely steep and building such large infrastructure is extremely
costly as well as difficult. Technically, this can be possible but it is too
risky both diplomatically and economically along with fear of strong
retaliation from Pakistan including use of kinetic force. Moreover, it can
trigger diplomatic crisis and also, will have legal consequences.
Pakistan’s
Retaliation: Suspension of Shimla Agreement
Furthermore, Pakistan has
retaliated suspension of IWT by suspending
Shimla agreement of 1972, signed in the aftermath of indo-Pak war of 1972
that resulted in creation of Bangladesh, aimed at peaceful co-existence of both
states along with bilateral resolution of all disputes including Kashmir issue
without international involvement and formalization of LOC as ceasefire line
between both so that none of the side make an attempt to unilaterally alter it
either by the use of force or threat. So now, this agreement, in contrast to
IWT, is not brokered by any third party. With Shimla agreement suspension, LOC
is in jeopardy and now there is room for internationalization of Kahmir instead
of resolving this issue bilaterally.
Use
of Rhetoric, and Potential for War?
All these actions have
heightened tensions. Strong rhetoric
is being used by both sides to reflect their readiness to take extreme
actionsto protect their interests. PPP Chief Bilawal Bhutto’s “either our water or their blood will flow”
and Indian defence minister’s “dot, dot,
dot” rhetoric are some examples. Both are showing their military readiness
for any potential actions. But are two nuclear powers really going for a war?
In case of war between two nuclear states, mistrust can lead to nuclear attack
leading to Mutually Assured Destruction
having catastrophic consequences for the whole world. Indian media is talking
about fire exchange at Line of Control, but Pakistan has yet to comment on it.
Derived from Putin’s statements, it is being talked about that in case of war
between two nuclear powers, whole world will be destroyed but otherwise there
will be no Pakistan and what we have to do with the world without our country.
Pakistani officials are signaling that if India, without any evidence, continue
withholding Pakistan’s fair share, they will have to face serious repercussions
that might include kinetic means. War should not be an option. Both states
should choose diplomatic talks over kinetic means. In case, the IWT issue is
not resolved, both states might go for limited war as it is the question of Pakistan’s
survival.
Ongoing
Dispute - Resolution Measures
For dispute resolution, article 9 of the Indus Waters Treaty gives multi-tiered measures. First is the
Permanent Indus Commission for routine issue resolution. In case of its
failure, either party can request World Bank for neutral expert. For more
serious differences, the Court of Arbitration with help of the World Bank (WB)
is to be constituted. Not to forget that according to IWT, World Bank acts as a
facilitator with its role limited to administrative functions only and it has
nothing to do with decision making. As stated by WB President Mr. Ajay Banga, 'We
have to pay the fees of those guys through a trust fund that was set up at the
Bank at the time of creation of the treaty. That's our role. We have no role to
play beyond that.'
According to Article 33
of UN Charter, the parties to the dispute shall aim for conflict resolution
through mediation, negotiation, reconciliation, judicial settlement,
arbitration or by other peaceful means. Syed Ali Murtaza, Pakistan’s Secretary
of Water Resources, has formally sent a letter to his Indian counter-part. The
letter clearly stated Pakistan’s stance, legal concerns and also expressed
willingness for peaceful negotiations. If India does not accept Pakistan’s call
for table talks or peaceful negotiations on all issues including water and
Kashmir issues, then according to Article 35 of UN Charter can take the matter
to Security Council or the General Assembly.
And Pakistan is also considering a fourth option - UNSC (UN Security
Council) – in case needed. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association
(SCBA) committee has stepped in to provide assistance to federal government in
legal domain in raising the issue at appropriate forums.
On a global level, in order to avoid escalation, other states should
interfere. Although, US president Doland Trump’s “they’ll figure it out”
statement seems irresponsible one, coming from a world power. On the other
hand, China can play its role as India is lower riparian to China as Pakistan
is to India. What India is doing with Pakistan today, it is setting an example
for China to do the same in case of any conflict between them and unlike IWT,
both have no agreement signed. Besides, Iran and Saudi Arabia can also
interfere in settling the hot conflict going on. Both have good relations with
India and Pakistan. Their involvement can be beneficial.
Conclusion:
The unilateral suspension
of Indus Waters Treaty by India is not only a violation of article 12 of the
agreement but it is also a clear violation of articles 57, 60 and 62 of Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) dealing with suspension, termination
and material breach of agreements. In case, India attempts to block or divert
western rivers, it will be a clear violation of International Water Law (IWL)
as well.
In sum, India is barking
at the wrong tree by suspending the treaty without any evidence of Pakistani
involvement in Pahalgam attack in order to divert attention from its own
security failure. Recent statements by some Indian Army officials claiming
Pahalgam attack as “false flag operation” is also making headlines. Indian
leadership needs to review its action seriously right away or else if the situation
gets prolonged, situation might escalate threatening regional stability. Both
NUCLEAR states cannot afford going into war. It will be unfavorable for both as
it will have catastrophic impacts not only for them but for the whole
region.
Besides, the ongoing
weaponization of waters is not only a political dispute between two states but
it also underscores the climate security
crisis that poses significant threat to stability, peace and security. It
is a wake-up call for the world and requires “collective approach” for the solution.
.jpg)