India has two options: Share Indus water fairly or we'll take all six rivers, says Bilawal Bhutto
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has warned India against suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, deeming it an illegal act. He asserted that Pakistan would retaliate if its water rights were violated, even suggesting potential military action. He also advocated for renewed dialogue and counterterrorism cooperation, while accusing India of targeting Pakistan on international platforms and politicizing terrorism issues.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
No Legal Basis for Suspension, Says Bhutto
Urges Resumption of Dialogue and Anti-Terror Cooperation
Accuses India of Targeting Pakistan on Global Platforms
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Indus Waters Treaty: A Rare Surviving Accord
Popular in India
Not the first time Bhutto has threatened India
Former Pakistan foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari issued a strong warning to India on Monday over its suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), stating that Pakistan would not remain passive if its water rights were infringed. Speaking during Pakistan's National Assembly budget session, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) chairman called India's decision 'illegal and provocative.''India has two options: share water fairly, or we will take it from all six rivers,' Bilawal said, referring to India's announcement to suspend the 1960 treaty following the April 23 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan-based militants.Bilawal maintained that the treaty does not permit unilateral withdrawal. 'India's claim that the treaty is in abeyance has no legal basis. According to the UN Charter, cutting off water is a form of aggression,' he said, adding that India's course of action could risk open conflict. 'We do not want war, but if water is used as a weapon, Pakistan will be forced to act — and we are in a position to defeat India just as we have before,' he claimed.The former foreign minister also urged the resumption of dialogue and counterterrorism cooperation . He argued that India's politicisation of terrorism issues had hindered regional peace. 'Without engagement, violence will only increase,' he said.Bilawal further accused India of misusing international forums to target Pakistan, referencing India's lobbying efforts during Pakistan's removal from the FATF grey list. He criticised what he described as 'PM Modi's new normal,' where terrorist incidents are followed by immediate threats. 'We suffer more attacks than India — many linked to Indian funding. Should we respond in kind?' he asked.He concluded by stressing that sustainable peace in South Asia requires dialogue and mutual trust. The IWT, signed in 1960, allocates water from six rivers between India and Pakistan. India controls the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – while Pakistan has rights over the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.'The Indus is ours and will remain ours - either our water will flow through it, or their blood,' former foreign minister was quoted saying by Pakistani media few days after India put the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance in response to the Pahalgam massacre.(With inputs from TOI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump ‘Humiliates' Zelensky In The Hague Ahead Of NATO Talks; ‘Well, It Shows Weakness…'
'We Saw Bombs Flying Above Us': First Batch of Indians Evacuated From Israel Recount Horror of War The first batch of 161 Indian nationals evacuated from Israel under Operation Sindhu has landed safely in Delhi from Amman, Jordan. These individuals were transported by road from Israel to Jordan amid the rising hostilities between Israel and last week, Operation Sindhu is India's ongoing mission to bring back stranded citizens from conflict zones in the Middle East. This group includes an elderly couple stuck in Israel for over a month. They, along with others, were given accommodation and support by the Indian Embassy in Amman before being flown home. MoS Pabitra Margherita received the evacuees at Delhi airport, marking a successful beginning to the Israel segment of the operation.#operationsindhu #indianevacuation #israeliranconflict #indiansinisrael #amman #moea #pabitramargherita #indiandiaspora #westasiacrisis #flightrescue #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews 491 views | 14 hours ago
The Hindu
28 minutes ago
- The Hindu
French tourist raped in Udaipur after being lured from party; accused absconding
JAIPUR A 30-year-old French tourist was allegedly raped in Rajasthan's Udaipur after being lured from a party by an employee of an event management company. The woman, who had arrived in Udaipur from Delhi on June 22, was staying at a hotel in the Ambamata area. On Monday night, she attended a party at a restaurant near Tiger Hills, where she met the accused, identified as Pushp Raj. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the accused engaged her in conversation and offered to show her around the city. 'He later took her to his rented apartment in Sukher locality, where he raped her,' it said. The victim said she repeatedly asked him to drop her back, but the accusedrefused. Her mobile phone had run out of battery, leaving her unable to call for help. The woman later admitted herself to a private hospital in Udaipur, where hospital staff alerted the police. She filed a formal complaint from the hospital, and a case was registered under Section 64(1) (rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at the Badgaon police station. Police officials stated that the French national is in stable condition and continues to receive medical treatment. The French Embassy in New Delhi has been informed of the incident. Police have launched a manhunt to arrest the accused, who is currently absconding. The Opposition Congress has warned of possible 'international ramifications', especially as the United States has already issued a travel advisory, urging caution to women travellers in six Indian States due to rising rape cases. The Congress stated that Rajasthan may soon be added to such advisories. 'Women feel unsafe' Veteran Congress leader and former Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot said the incident had exposed the deteriorating law and order situation in Rajasthan. 'Women across the State feel unsafe, but the Bharatiya Janata Party government remains indifferent,' he said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump administration accuses judge of defying Supreme Court in deportation fight
* Trump administration accuses judge of defying Supreme Court in deportation fight US has sought to deport migrants to unstable South Sudan * Judge says deportation attempt violated his injunction By Andrew Chung June 24 - President Donald Trump's administration accused a federal judge on Tuesday of defying the U.S. Supreme Court's authority, escalating a fight over a group of eight migrants who it had sought to rapidly deport to politically unstable South Sudan. In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy showed "unprecedented defiance" by ignoring Monday's decision by the justices that let the administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. Monday's decision lifted the Boston-based judge's April 18 injunction requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination. It was the latest legal victory for Trump at the Supreme Court in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. After the Supreme Court's decision, Murphy issued an order clarifying that its action did not apply to the judge's separate May 21 decision that the administration violated his injunction in attempting to send the migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." Murphy's May 21 order prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to clarify that its order lifting Murphy's injunction also applies to the May 21 decision concerning South Sudan. "The district court's ruling of night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive's lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals," the Justice Department wrote in its filing. The Justice Department said its agents are being "forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict." The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The escalating dispute comes as the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders, including in the third-country deportation litigation. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent on Monday that in sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another instance four others to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and on to El Salvador, the administration "openly flouted two court orders" issued by Murphy. Sotomayor also pointed to separate litigation over Trump's invocation of an 18th century law historically used only in wartime to justify deportations - a legal dispute in which questions have been raised about the administration's compliance with an order issued by a judge in that case. "This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law." Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates the U.S. Constitution's due process protections. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. Lawyers representing the migrants in a class action lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to reject the administration's latest request. The administration wants to "deport these men to South Sudan with no process at all," the lawyers said. "The lives and safety of eight members of the nationally certified class in this case are at imminent risk," they added. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
