ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has strongly dismissed India’s claim of placing the Indus Waters Treaty in “abeyance,” calling the move legally baseless and reaffirming that the landmark water-sharing agreement remains fully enforceable and protected by established legal mechanisms.
Talking to a private television, Pakistan’s Commissioner for Indus Waters, Syed Muhammad Mehar Ali Shah, emphasized that international treaty law does not recognize the term “abeyance” and warned that any attempt to alter Pakistan’s water share unilaterally would be considered an act of war.
He noted that India’s use of the term “abeyance” implicitly acknowledges that it cannot legally suspend, breach, or terminate the Indus Waters Treaty unilaterally. “This is a coined expression. Under international law, there is no such provision,” he said, highlighting Pakistan’s strong legal position on the issue.
India announced it was placing the treaty in abeyance in April 2025, following an attack on tourists in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam that killed 26 people. New Delhi blamed Pakistan for the incident without presenting evidence, while Islamabad firmly rejected the allegation and warned that any attempt to suspend Pakistan’s water share would be treated as an act of war.
In a significant development supporting Pakistan’s stance, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in June that India has no authority to unilaterally place the treaty in abeyance.
While reaffirming Pakistan’s confidence in the treaty’s legal strength, Shah cautioned that India’s continued non-cooperation within the rules-based framework was alarming.
He said India was attempting to sidestep its obligations on self-created grounds, prompting Pakistan to adopt a formal, cautious, and well-calibrated legal and diplomatic response. “Whatever steps Pakistan is taking are measured, formal, and firmly grounded in international law,” he stated.
Highlighting the foresight behind the treaty, Shah explained that the IWT was carefully negotiated to withstand political tensions and disputes. Its dispute-resolution mechanism, he said, was designed specifically to prevent unilateral actions and to ensure peaceful settlement through neutral forums or arbitration if bilateral engagement fails.
Responding to repeated threats by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi regarding stopping Pakistan’s water share, Shah asserted that there was neither legal nor moral space for such actions.
“There is no room for stopping or partially stopping Pakistan’s water. It goes against both international law and moral standards,” he said, adding that any attempt to divert or block the western rivers would have serious consequences.
He recalled that Pakistan had already borne the consequences of concessions made under the treaty, having allocated the three eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — to India.
“Sutlej is mostly dry except during floods, and Ravi is effectively dry. Pakistan has faced these consequences since the beginning,” Shah noted, highlighting the sacrifices Pakistan has already made for regional stability.
Reiterating Pakistan’s red line, Shah said any move to reduce water flows to Pakistan would be considered an act of war. He clarified that the treaty does not fix a specific volume of water but guarantees Pakistan access based on the natural flow of the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.
“So far, these rivers have flowed naturally,” he said, while pointing out that since April 24, 2025, Pakistan had documented three incidents where India artificially increased and then decreased flows for short periods.
Explaining the treaty’s dispute-resolution framework, Shah said it clearly mandates peaceful resolution during times of conflict, with recourse to neutral experts or the Court of Arbitration if needed.
He stressed that the treaty’s final article explicitly states that any amendments require mutual consent; otherwise, the treaty remains fully enforceable and unchanged. “No party has the right to unilaterally alter it,” he emphasized.
Addressing claims that the treaty favoured India, Shah explained that while India gained geographic advantage through the eastern rivers, the western rivers’ natural flow must not be altered. India, he said, is only permitted limited use of western rivers for hydropower generation within strict guidelines.
Recalling past disputes, Shah noted that India first violated the treaty during the construction of the Salal Dam, followed by the Baglihar Dam case, where Pakistan sought third-party adjudication. Although the decision did not favour Pakistan, Islamabad accepted it as binding under the treaty, demonstrating Pakistan’s commitment to international law.
To prevent future misuse of the Baglihar ruling, Pakistan later approached the Court of Arbitration for a broader interpretation of treaty provisions. Shah also highlighted Pakistan’s objections to India’s Ratle Hydroelectric Project on the Chenab River, as well as concerns over the Kiru and Kwar projects, whose designs were shared before the April 2025 developments.
According to international law experts, Pakistan’s position on the Indus Waters Treaty is strongly anchored in international law, established arbitration precedents and decades of treaty compliance, even during periods of heightened conflict.
The ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration has further reinforced Islamabad’s stance, exposing India’s “abeyance” claim as legally untenable and politically motivated.
Pakistan’s continued reliance on formal mechanisms underscores its commitment to peace, stability and lawful dispute resolution, while India’s unilateral rhetoric and actions risk undermining a globally respected water-sharing framework.
The treaty remains a symbol of Pakistan’s resilience, legal prudence, and determination to safeguard its vital water rights through international norms rather than coercion.
