7 hours Ago By Haider Omar Hayat
In the midst of the chaos surrounding the Pahalgam attack, one major point of contention between the states of India and Pakistan has become the Indus Waters Treaty. The Indus Waters, and the equitable distribution thereof, have been one of the most significant disputes between the two sovereign states since partition in 1947. This issue concerns the shared water resources between Pakistan and India.
As both countries rely on the Indus River and its tributaries, numerous challenges have emerged regarding water management. Given that both nations have agriculture-driven economies, the Indus River is especially vital for Pakistan, serving as the backbone of its agricultural sector and playing a key role in its economic stability. As the lower riparian state, Pakistan has consistently faced concerns over the fair distribution of water – an ongoing source of tension between the two nations.
At times, India has used its control over water flow as a political tool to exert pressure on Pakistan, potentially undermining its agricultural productivity and, in turn, its economy. This dynamic has been recognised internationally as a significant threat to regional peace and stability. As a result, in 1960, the World Bank brokered the ‘Indus Waters Treaty’, governing the management and distribution of the Indus River and its tributaries.
While the treaty has endured the brunt of significant political tensions, it has remained (up until now) one of the most enduring and effective water-sharing agreements in the world. Gold prices dip by Rs3,300 to Rs348,700 per tola Since its inception, the Indus Waters Treaty has encountered various challenges and disputes, mainly arising from differing interpretations of its provisions and the evolving water demands of both nations. Nevertheless, over the past five decades, the Treaty has demonstrated resilience and adaptability, with the ‘Commission’ effectively resolving most issues through negotiation.
For context, on the 22nd of April, a terrorist attack took place in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), claiming the lives of over two dozen innocent civilians. In a rash and unwarranted (read: biased) response, the far-right Indian government (spearheaded by the champion of Hindutva – Narendra Modi), without any justification or factual basis, held Pakistan accountable for the attack (despite an unequivocal condemnation issued by the Pakistan Foreign Office). In doing so, the Indian Government announced various measures targeting Pakistan, including unilaterally deciding to close all border crossings, expelling Pakistani diplomats, and most importantly, suspension of the critical treaty governing the Indus Rivers (without any legal basis whatsoever).
In addition, the Indian Defence Minister has promised a “loud and clear response”, signalling an imminent attack on Pakistani territory. In response, the Pakistan ‘National Security Committee’ has (while condemning the attack) vowed a complete response to any aggression and stated that any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water to Pakistan will be considered an ‘act of war’. Rupee gains 09 paisa against dollar To properly evaluate the legality of India’s recent actions concerning the Indus Waters Treaty, it is essential to closely examine the legal imperatives embedded within the Treaty itself.
Specifically, the notion of placing the Treaty in “abeyance” is not only absent from the text, but fundamentally at odds with the Treaty’s spirit and structure. Nowhere within the document – be it in the operative clauses or the annexures – is there any provision that permits either party to unilaterally suspend, pause, or hold the Treaty in ‘abeyance’. This omission is not accidental but deliberate, underscoring the binding and continuous nature of the obligations enshrined within it.
The Treaty was crafted with the explicit intention of withstanding political volatility, and its strength lies in its insistence on bilateralism and mutual consent as the sole basis for any substantial change. Article XII of the Treaty, titled Final Provisions, lays down a clear and limited set of mechanisms by which the Treaty may be altered. Sub-clause (3) of this Article specifically allows for modification, but only if both Pakistan and India agree to the changes in writing.
The only other path provided for under the Treaty is complete termination, under sub-clause (4), which again, must occur through mutual agreement. In the absence of such bilateral consent, the Treaty remains in full force and effect, with neither party possessing the legal authority to unilaterally alter or suspend its implementation. Therefore, any attempt to place the Treaty in ‘abeyance’ without consent from both sides amounts to a direct contravention of its provisions.
Such a move not only undermines the legal sanctity of the Treaty but also carries serious international legal consequences, potentially destabilising the broader framework of water cooperation in the region (as well as setting a dangerous precedent worldwide). PSX turns around to bullish trend, gains 449 points It is also not out of place to mention that Pakistan has, over the years, outlined that any stoppage of water by their Indian counterparts is not only a red line and an act of war, but is clearly a strategic tolerance threshold. Such an act has the ability to warrant a nuclear response in order to safeguard the national interests of Pakistan.
One thing remains unequivocal: India’s actions concerning the Indus Waters Treaty are entirely devoid of legal justification. These actions necessitate a robust legal response from the Government of Pakistan to safeguard and assert its rights – enshrined in the Treaty – before relevant international forums. The right to water is now widely acknowledged as a fundamental human right, intrinsically linked to the constitutional right to life.
As former Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court, Justice Saqib Nisar, aptly stated in one of his judgments: “[L]ack of water can paralyse and mark the death of a people; therefore, water is essential for survival. Water is life and life is water.” Commerce minister meets UN Agri-Food delegation to advance nutrition, trade, GI-reforms At present, we remain passive observers in this unfolding dispute between Pakistan and India, watching closely as events continue to evolve.
Amid the uncertainty, one overriding hope persists – that the situation does not culminate in a catastrophic setback for Pakistan’s already fragile economy. Haider Omar Hayat The writer is a lawyer practicing in Islamabad. He can be reached at haider.
[email protected].
.
