It’s time to move global arbitration forums on Indus treaty

While Islamabad made the right noises after an Indian minister said his government would never restore the Indus Waters Treaty, it must realise that the problem is unlikely to be resolved without seeking remedies at an appropriate international legal forum

STATE OF THE REGION

June 23, 2025

FOR over six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has stood resilient — even during times of war — serving as a rare symbol of India-Pakistan cooperation. But that symbolic durability is now facing its most serious challenge yet.

Several weeks on from placing the treaty in “abeyance”, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah has now declared that it “will never be restored” — a statement that has triggered alarm bells in Islamabad and beyond.

Speaking to The Times of India, he said: “We will take water that was flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan by constructing a canal. Pakistan will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably.”
With a tone of finality, he added: “The treaty will never be restored.”

This is no mere political flourish. It represents a deliberate policy direction. The Indian government has reportedly approved engineering works to desilt dams and redirect water flows from rivers such as the Ravi and Beas — tributaries that traditionally flow towards Pakistan — as part of what it calls "reclaiming sovereign rights" over its eastern rivers.

Although Pakistan responded swiftly to Shah’s remarks, its reactions have so far remained limited to statements. The Foreign Office denounced Shah’s remarks as a “brazen disregard for international agreements.”

In a strongly worded statement, it added: “The Indus Waters Treaty is not a political arrangement, but an international treaty with no provision for unilateral action… India’s illegal announcement to hold the treaty in abeyance constitutes a clear violation of international law.”

The FO also warned that such unilateral measures could have “grave consequences” for regional stability, particularly given Pakistan’s dependence on the western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — which were allocated to it under the treaty.

The IWT, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, has long been hailed as a model of sustained bilateral engagement between two hostile neighbours. It divides the six rivers of the Indus Basin between the two countries: the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) for India, and the western rivers for Pakistan. While India is permitted limited agricultural use of the western rivers, the flow to Pakistan must remain uninterrupted. Any deliberate diversion could not only breach the treaty but, as some Pakistani officials have warned, amount to “a declaration of water war.”

Legal and policy experts in Pakistan have been urging the government to go beyond diplomatic posturing. International law specialist Ahmer Bilal Soofi has argued that Pakistan must initiate proceedings before appropriate legal forums.

“Pakistan must urgently approach the International Court of Justice or invoke arbitration mechanisms available under the treaty,” Soofi told Dawn. “Only a binding decree from an international court can check India's unilateralism.”

He also recommended that Pakistan explore avenues under the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses — which, while not ratified by India, could carry persuasive legal weight.

Meanwhile, analysts sympathetic to the Indian government contend that New Delhi is reacting to what it perceives as sustained hostility and support for cross-border militancy. But independent observers have sounded the alarm. Michael Kugelman of the Wilson Centre observed: “Unilaterally upending the Indus Waters Treaty sends a troubling signal. It removes one of the last functional stabilisers in a very fragile bilateral relationship.”

The World Bank, a guarantor of the treaty, has so far remained silent, but any disruption of agreed-upon water flows could impact agricultural productivity, food security, and the daily lives of millions — particularly in Pakistan’s already water-stressed regions.

In the final analysis, Pakistan cannot afford to rely on diplomatic outrage alone. Shah’s remarks — and the clear policy intent behind them — suggest that India’s leadership no longer views the IWT as sacrosanct. Islamabad must act decisively to internationalise the matter.

Legal petitions should be filed before the International Court of Justice or other relevant UN-affiliated dispute resolution bodies. Waiting for India to act on the threats could prove catastrophic. If Pakistan hopes to safeguard its historical water rights — and maintain any semblance of legal deterrence — the time for courtroom diplomacy is now.