Latest news with #AqeelMalik
Scroll.in
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Indus Water Treaty: Pakistan has few legal options against India
After New Delhi announced that it would hold the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan in abeyance in response to the terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22 that left 26 people dead, Islamabad issued a strong counter. It said that it would consider 'any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan…as an Act of War …' Pakistan also said it was exploring legal strategies to keep the waters from India flowing. However, it's clear that Pakistan's options are limited. Detailing the legal strategies available to Pakistan, the country's Minister of State for Law and Justice Aqeel Malik told Reuters that Islamabad could raise the issue at the World Bank, which mediated the treaty. It could also move the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice in The Hague claiming that India has violated the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. At the diplomatic level, Pakistan could raise the issue with the United Nations Security Council too, he said. The World Bank, after negotiating the treaty on sharing the water of the Indus River System in 1960, also played a role in settling disagreements between India and Pakistan. For instance, in May 2005, after consultation with the two countries, the World Bank appointed Raymond Lafitte as a 'neutral expert' to settle differences between them over the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab river in India. In 2007, he cleared the project. The World Bank stepped in again in 2022 when a dispute arose about India's Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric power plants on the Chenab, both part of the Indus riparian system. India asked for a neutral expert to consider the matter while Pakistan requested the establishment of a Court of Arbitration. The World Bank appointed Michel Lino as a neutral expert and Sean Murphy as chairman of a Court of Arbitration. But India declined to participate in the hearings of the Court of Arbitration. It said that the World Bank's decision to constitute the court contravened the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty. India said that it could not 'be compelled to recognise or participate in illegal and parallel proceedings not envisaged by the Treaty '. So far, India has not formally told the World Bank about its decision to hold the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance. A World Bank spokesperson said that the institution was a 'signatory to the treaty for a limited set of defined tasks' and it does 'not opine on treaty-related sovereign decisions taken by its member countries '. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice depends on the consent of member-states and is not an obligation. In September 2019, India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar signed a declaration recognising the court's jurisdiction as 'compulsory' with 13 exceptions. Of these exceptions, point number two concerns disputes with 'any State which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations '. Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth. Number 3 is about 'disputes in regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Republic of India'. For India, Jammu and Kashmir is an internal matter. Number 4 relates to disputes arising from hostilities, armed conflicts, self-defence, resistance to aggression, international obligations, or related actions involving India, including national security and defence measures. This would squarely cover the situation arising from the Pahalgam attack, as far India is concerned. Under number 13, India reserves the right to amend or terminate the declaration after notifying the United Nations secretary general of its decision. Another option Pakistani minister Malik mentioned is raising the matter in the United Nations Security Council. In this case, the most relevant section of the United Nations charter would be Article 35, which says that a member state 'may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly'. Article 34, says that the security council may investigate any dispute or situation that could cause friction or threaten international peace and security. In June 2020, Egypt took a dispute about the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam to the security council under Article 35. The dam on the Blue Nile River in Ethiopia's Benishangul-Gumuz region has led to transboundary water disputes between Ethiopia and its lower riparian countries: Egypt and Sudan. In September 2021, the security council asked the three countries to take forward a negotiation process led by the African Union. At that time, India's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, said New Delhi's position is that, 'as a general rule, transboundary water issues do not belong to the domain of the Security Council '. It is possible that the UN Security Council may take the water dispute between India and Pakistan more seriously because both sides are nuclear powers and the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty could trigger a fullscale war. Preventing such escalation is key for the security council. In 2022, the five permanent members of the security council had made a joint statement underscoring that they 'consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities '. Though lower riparian countries such as Pakistan, in this case, have a right over the shared river waters, cooperation largely depends on the water situation in the upper riparian region, the nature of bilateral relations and the power capabilities of the countries involved. It is not unknown for even unfriendly countries to cooperate on matters that are in their larger interests. The United Nations and the World Bank have played a role in sealing deals between riparian neighbours, but their role largely depends on the global political situation at the time. Though Pakistan could use diplomatic mechanisms to try to resolve India's unilateral suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, legally, Islamabad's hand is weak.
The Hindu
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
The impact of suspending a water treaty
In a strong measure against Pakistan, after terrorists from The Resistance Front killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, India's Cabinet Committee on Security decided that 'the Indus Waters Treaty [IWT] of 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. This implicitly means an end to the water treaty, signed in 1960. There is no exit clause and provision in the IWT for unilateral abrogation. Article XII (4) of the IWT states that the treaty 'shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two governments'. Many Indian analysts often argue that the provisions under Articles 60 and 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) can be used to revoke the treaty. India is not a party to the VCLT; Pakistan has signed but not ratified it. Invoking provisions under Article 62 of the VCLT on the IWT is convenient, but tough to argue. Suspending the IWT may also internationalise the water matter between the two hostile countries. Aqeel Malik, the Minister of State for Law and Justice in Pakistan, told Reuters that there are three different legal options, including raising the issue at the World Bank, taking action at the Permanent Court of Arbitration or at the International Court of Justice in the Hague alleging that India has violated the 1969 VCLT, or raising the issue at the UN Security Council. Stopping the flow of water India can now stop sharing water flow data with Pakistan, flush reservoirs, and there will be no hydro project design or operation-related restrictions on India. It can also hold water during the dry period and release it during the high monsoon, causing drought and floods in Pakistan. The western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — are considered the backbone for Pakistan's agriculture, domestic consumption, and hydroelectricity production. An impact on the flow of water to Pakistan may further intensify inter-provincial water disputes in the country. Punjab and Sindh have a long history of water fights. Currently, they are arguing over a plan to construct six canals, particularly the Cholistan Canal, to irrigate the deserted Cholistan region in Punjab. Amid protests in Sindh, the federal government of Pakistan decided to halt the contentious canal projects. To materialise its political decision on the IWT, India requires major infrastructure projects. Under the IWT, India is permitted to store up to 3.60 million acre-feet (MAF) of water, develop 1.34 million acres of irrigation land in J&K and Ladakh, and construct run-of-the-river dams on the western rivers. However, India has a storage capacity of only around 1 MAF and has developed irrigation for about 0.642 million acres. On the eastern rivers — Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi — India utilises more than 90% of its 33 MAF allocated waters, supported by major projects such as the Bhakra, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dam. India's hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, such as the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project, Ratle Dam, Salal Dam, Nimoo Bazgo, and Baglihar Dam, aim to harness the water resources of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers to generate electricity, utilising India's allocated share of water under the IWT. These projects have varying storage capacities, with Kishanganga at 18.35 million cubic meters, Ratle Dam at 78.71 million cubic meters, Salal Dam at 285 million cubic meters, and Baglihar Dam at 475 million cubic meters. Upcoming and planned projects such as the Ratle Dam, Kiru Dam, and Pakal Dul Dam will further tap into the Chenab River and its tributaries. However, India's ability to capture and utilise the water flowing into Pakistan is limited by the capacity of these projects. India lacks massive storage infrastructure to hold back large volumes of water during high-flow periods. While India has launched short, medium-term, and long-term plans to maximise its water share and reduce flows into Pakistan, most western river projects remain run-of-the-river with minimal storage. Given the challenging Himalayan terrain and bureaucratic delays, building the required infrastructure to harness the treaty entitlements could take a decade or longer. Conclusion India may justify its position on suspending the IWT. However, if its steps on the IWT do not politically and diplomatically satisfy other neighbouring countries, the suspension may impact New Delhi's relations with them. For instance, the upper riparian to many Indian rivers, China, may cite the suspension of the IWT in its favour to not renew Memorandum of Understanding on water data sharing or sharing information of hydrostructures on the rivers flowing into India from Tibet. India's MoU on data sharing with China on the Sutlej and Brahmaputra rivers have expired and, as India's Ministry of Water Resources website says, is under the process of renewal. Notably, during the Doklam crisis in 2017, China did not share hydro data with India, but shared it with Bangladesh. Second, as India and Bangladesh have agreed to renew the Ganga Water Treaty, set to expire in 2026, India's decision on the IWT may cast a shadow over it. Currently, India and Bangladesh do not share very close relations. India's water decisions may even prompt a section of the Nepali population to caution the government on water related and other agreements with New Delhi. A few commentators from Sri Lanka too are talking about 'treading' carefully while signing agreements with India. Amit Ranjan, Research Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore; NabeelaSiddiqui, Assistant Professor, Vinayaka Mission's Law School, Vinayaka, Missions Research Foundation-Deemed University, Chennai
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Why Pakistan's three-point way around India's Indus Waters Treaty suspension won't work?
Pakistan draws up a three-point legal plan Live Events India unmoved, cites terrorism and treaty limits Can Pakistan take India to court? World Bank: A limited role Indus Waters Treaty: A fragile but enduring pact (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In the wake of a terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir that left 26 civilians dead, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty , a critical river-sharing agreement with Pakistan. The suspension came with a stern message: India would not resume talks until 'Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism .'The attack, which India has blamed on Pakistan-based militants, has reignited old tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. Two of the three attackers identified were Pakistani nationals, according to Indian authorities. Pakistan has denied any role and condemned the killings, but India's diplomatic response has been sharp—and Islamabad is scrambling for legal redress. Aqeel Malik, Pakistan's Minister of State for Law and Justice, told Reuters on Monday that legal consultations are 'almost complete.''Legal strategy consultations are almost complete,' said Malik. 'The decision on which cases to pursue would be made soon and would likely include pursuing more than one avenue.'Among the options on the table are approaching the World Bank, which facilitated the original 1960 treaty, and escalating the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. Pakistan may also raise the issue at the United Nations Security Council.'All the options are on the table and we are pursuing all appropriate and competent forums to approach,' Malik further asserted, 'The treaty cannot be suspended unilaterally and cannot be held in abeyance, there is not (such a) provision within the treaty.'Islamabad, facing mounting internal water stress and a long-standing dependency on the Indus and its tributaries, views India's suspension of the pact as a dire provocation. It warned that 'any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan ... will be considered as an act of war.'India has not yet commented officially on the legal threats, but officials and water experts say New Delhi acted within its Vohra, former head of India's Central Water Commission, said: 'There are very limited options (for Pakistan) ... I can say that there are solid grounds for us to defend our (India's) action.'Under the 1960 treaty, India is allowed non-consumptive use—mainly hydropower generation—of rivers allocated to Pakistan. However, storage or diversion is restricted. Experts note that changes to actual river flows will take time, but the political signal is immediate and Pakistan may seek legal recourse, there are serious jurisdictional instance, the ICJ only takes cases where both parties have consented to its jurisdiction. In its 2019 declaration, India, while accepting the ICJ's authority under Article 36, explicitly excluded disputes involving Commonwealth nations and matters related to hostilities, national security, or armed clause reads: ICJ shall not have jurisdiction for 'disputes with the government of any State which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations.' This effectively rules out Pakistan, which is a Commonwealth exclusion states: ICJ has no jurisdiction in 'disputes relating to or connected with facts or situations of hostilities, armed conflicts… or national security.'Similar constraints apply at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which also relies on mutual World Bank, often mistaken as the treaty's guarantor, holds no enforcement power over the Indus Waters Treaty. It acted as a mediator during the original signing but plays no role in its daily Bank may appoint neutral experts or suggest arbitration chairs, but its recommendations are non-binding. Its function is strictly limited to facilitation, not in 1960, the Indus Waters Treaty has withstood wars, skirmishes, and long periods of diplomatic frost. It splits the six rivers of the Indus basin between the two countries. India receives water from the Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi; Pakistan from the Chenab, Jhelum, and the Indus being upstream, holds certain rights but has agreed to limitations for peace and stability. Until now, both nations have adhered to the pact even during periods of armed this time, India's decision to 'hold the treaty in abeyance' signals a shift—driven by security concerns rather than water attack in Pahalgam has sparked widespread anger in India and condemnation from Kashmiris themselves, who staged protests blaming Pakistan. Reports suggest the gunmen targeted civilians after demanding they prove their religious move to suspend the treaty was followed by other retaliatory measures. India's airspace is now closed to Pakistani airlines, and all trade with Islamabad has been the legal posturing, Pakistan's options are limited. Even if the matter reaches international forums, jurisdictional barriers and India's treaty exemptions make it difficult to win a ruling in its with farmers already reeling from climate-induced water stress, the implications for Pakistan's agriculture and energy sectors are position remains firm. The message is blunt: end terror, or face the consequences—even in water.
Express Tribune
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Pakistan to challenge IWT suspension at global forums
Listen to article Pakistan is preparing to take legal action against India at the international level over its suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), as tensions intensify between the two neighbours following an attack on tourists in Pahalgam last week. Minister of State for Law and Justice Aqeel Malik told Reuters late on Monday that Islamabad was working on plans for at least three different legal options, including raising the issue at the World Bank — the treaty's facilitator. It was also considering taking action at the Permanent Court of Arbitration or at the International Court of Justice in The Hague for India's violation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, he said. Another option, he added, was the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). "Legal strategy consultations are almost complete," Malik said, adding the decision on which cases to pursue would be made "soon" and would likely include pursuing more than one avenue. "All the options are on the table," he continued. "We are pursuing all appropriate and competent forums to approach," he said. "The treaty cannot be suspended unilaterally and cannot be held in abeyance, there is not (such a) provision within the treaty," Malik added. India last week suspended the World Bank-mediated Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 after the attack in Pahalgam, after blaming Pakistan for the attack. India has alleged that two of the three assailants it has identified were from Pakistan. Islamabad has rejected India's allegation of involvement in the attack in which 26 people were killed. The National Security Committee, which met after Indian measures, warned that "any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan ... will be considered as an act of war". The treaty is an agreement for the distribution and use of waters from the Indus River and its tributaries, which feed 80% of Pakistan's irrigated agriculture and its hydropower. It has been operational until now despite the wars and other periodic bouts of hostility between the two nations. Experts on both sides of the border say that India cannot stop water flows immediately, because the treaty has allowed it to only build hydropower plants without significant storage or dams on the three rivers allocated to Pakistan.
Express Tribune
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Pakistan plans legal action over India's suspension of Indus Waters Treaty
Listen to article Pakistan is preparing international legal action over India's suspension of Indus Waters Treaty, a government minister told Reuters, as tensions intensify between the neighbours following an attack on tourists in the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). Aqeel Malik, the Minister of State for Law and Justice, told Reuters that Islamabad was working on plans for at least three different legal options, including raising the issue at the World Bank - the treaty's facilitator. It was also considering taking action at the Permanent Court of Arbitration or at the International Court of Justice in the Hague where it could allege that India has violated the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, he said. 'Legal strategy consultations are almost complete,' Malik said, adding the decision on which cases to pursue would be made 'soon' and would likely include pursuing more than one avenue. India last week suspended the World Bank-mediated Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 after the attack in IIOJK, saying it would last until 'Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. Islamabad denies any involvement in the attack in which 26 people were killed. India claims two of three assailants it has identified were from Pakistan. Islamabad has said 'any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan … will be considered as an act of war'. Pakistan has also suspended all trade with India and closed its airspace to Indian airlines. Malik added that a fourth diplomatic option that Islamabad was considering was to raise the issue at the United Nations Security Council. 'All the options are on the table and we are pursuing all appropriate and competent forums to approach,' he said. 'The treaty cannot be suspended unilaterally and cannot be held in abeyance, there is not (such a) provision within the treaty,' said Malik. Kushvinder Vohra, a recently retired head of India's Central Water Commission said: 'There are very limited options (for Pakistan) … I can say that there are solid grounds for us to defend our (India's) action.' Government officials and experts on both sides say India cannot stop water flows immediately, because the treaty has allowed it to only build hydropower plants without significant storage or dams on the three rivers allocated to Pakistan.
