Delhi's reckless Indus gambit

Express Tribune

24-04-2025

Experts have termed India's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty as a political stunt and an eyewash designed to placate the Indian public, stressing that Delhi cannot unilaterally revoke or suspend the agreement.
"India or Pakistan cannot suspend or revoke the Indus Waters Treaty unilaterally, and any change in the treaty would require mutual consent," former Pakistan commissioner for Indus Waters (PCIW) Jamaat Ali Shah told The Express Tribune.
He said the Indus Waters Treaty is a permanent agreement, and therefore India would have to take Pakistan into confidence to suspend or revoke it.
Describing the Indian announcement as nothing more than political theatre, Shah said the move was a red herring aimed at misleading the Indian public. He stressed that Pakistan should also issue a political response to the statement. He pointed out that if India unilaterally walked away, it would effectively forfeit its rights to the rivers allocated to it under the treaty.
Responding to a question, he clarified that the World Bank is not a guarantor of the Indus Waters Treaty but rather an international body that facilitates dispute resolution between the two countries. It can even help establish an international court of arbitration in the event of a water dispute between Pakistan and India.
Meanwhile, Power Minister Awais Leghari also reacted to the Indian announcement, saying that India's "hasty and reckless suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty amounts to water war, a cowardly and illegal act".
"Every drop (of water) is our right, and we will defend it with all our might at the legal, political and international levels."
Experts observed that any suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty signals aggression and extremism by India, pointing out that the agreement cannot be unilaterally suspended or revoked.
They further warned that such unilateral action would cast doubt on the credibility of all international agreements.
Stressing that the treaty included no provision for unilateral "suspension", the noted that it was designed to be of indefinite duration, and was not tied to specific events or timeframes.
According to them, both India and Pakistan are equally bound to abide by the treaty.
By halting water flows into Pakistani rivers, India would not only be violating international water law but also setting a dangerous precedent.
International law generally holds that an upstream country (like India) does not have the right to block water to a downstream country (like Pakistan), even in the absence of a formal treaty.
Experts warned that if India establishes such a pattern of behaviour, it could set a regional precedent with implications beyond South Asia.
China, for instance, might cite this move to justify blocking water flows into the Brahmaputra River. Thus, India's action could prove self-damaging in the long run, as countries like China will be closely monitoring the situation.
The Indus Waters Treaty, established in 1960, clearly stipulates that any amendment must be made with the mutual consent of both parties. Having ratified the treaty, India would violate its commitments by suspending it unilaterally.
Such a move would not only contravene established mechanisms for dispute resolution – such as the Permanent Indus Commission, impartial experts, or an arbitral tribunal – but also undermine the very spirit of the agreement.