IWT held in abeyance The Statesman 08 Sept 2026

https://epaper.thestatesman.com/4196430/Delhi-The-Statesman/08-09-2026#page/7/2

IWT held in abeyance The Statesman 08 Sept 2026

          The preamble of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), signed on 19 Sept 1960, between India and Pakistan, mentions that it is being done in a ‘spirit of goodwill and friendship.’ It was expected that the two sides would maintain that spirit and be good neighbours. India, under the agreement, contributed financially to enable Pakistan to construct canals and other waterways to offset the impact of the treaty and shift its dependency from Eastern rivers to Western ones. The subcontinent has undergone vast changes over the years, necessitating a re-evaluation of the treaty.

India began requesting Pakistan to re-negotiate the treaty since 2023 due to changing dynamics. The reasons include enhanced water demands for agriculture, drinking and industry due to increased population, impact of climate change, advances in hydropower technology and interpretation of the treaty’s dispute resolution process. The same was never accepted by Pakistan, basically because the treaty favoured them. 

Operation Gibraltar launched by Pakistan in 1965 was the first instance of breaking the clause of ‘goodwill and friendship,’ under which the treaty was negotiated. India still adhered to its terms. It stuck to the agreement despite 1971, Kargil and support to terrorism in J and K. India did so because it believed that the people of Pakistan must not suffer because of misdeeds of its military leadership, which always sought to inflict injury on India, either through wars of supporting terrorism.

There is always a limit to patience within a country. Finally, running out of patience on Pakistan backing terrorism and offsetting basic conditions of goodwill and friendship, with Pahalgam, India decided to hold the treaty in ‘abeyance.’ The holding the treaty in ‘abeyance’ is considered by legal experts to indicate ‘political intent’ as the term is unrecognized in international treaty law.

In response, rather than stopping support to terrorism, Pakistan’s military and political leadership threatened India with conflict, approached the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague and attempted to internationalize the issue by conducting international seminars, publishing its viewpoints in global media networks exploiting its embedded journalists, as also playing the victim card.

Pakistan’s unemployed defence minister, Khawaja Asif went on to state, ‘The moment we feel that our national security – and water is part of our national security – is threatened, we will go to war against India. Definitely.’ Their PM, Shehbaz Sharief, stated at the SCO meeting in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, ‘Water is the lifeblood of our region. It sustains millions of lives, nourishes our land and secures the very future of our coming generations.’ He had earlier mentioned in Islamabad, ‘I declare in clear terms that every single drop of Pakistan’s water is our red line. If India does not come to its senses, it will be responded to directly.’

Asim Munir, busy running around the globe attempting to negotiate conflicts, in one of his rare visits to Pakistan and even rarer meeting with his generals, stated that the Pak military would ‘undertake all measures necessary to ensure availability of Pakistan’s rightful share of water as per directives of the government and aspirations of the people of Pakistan.’ However, he is aware of limitations of his armed forces, and the fact that India’s retaliation would be brutal.    

Pakistan conducted an international conference on IWT in end Jun in Islamabad, titled ‘Indus Waters Treaty as an Enduring Legal and Institutional Framework.’ It brought in fake experts on the treaty. In this, Pakistan’s leaders began singing that they are the true custodians of the Indus heritage, including its water. For eight decades, Pakistan, which considered Muhammad Bin Qasim as its first citizen, suddenly realized the importance of the Indus Valley civilization. Despite all its drama, its claims fell flat.

Playing the victim card, Pakistan approached the UN Security Council, of which it is a rotating member. Nothing moved. Not one member joined in criticizing India. Its foreign minister, Ishaq Dar, broached the subject when his UK and Canadian counterparts visited Islamabad, but as usual, the result was zilch.

Possibly Pakistan has a visitor once a month and it raises the IWT with each one, while India has a stream of visitors and not a single has even broached the topic. Pakistan attempted to bring in the World Bank, which had negotiated the treaty. World bank head, Ajay Singh Banga, mentioned that the bank has no role in bilateral issues. So much for Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts.

In end August, the Pak embassy in Washington hosted a discussion on ‘The Indus Waters Treaty: South Asian Security at Crossroads,’ hoping to impress policy makers in the US into applying pressure on India. It was another in its list of failures. It failed to draw in any international expert. The only US academician who attended was a professor from Boston University, who had earlier been VC of Lahore University.

To highlight the Indian viewpoint and challenge Pakistan’s game on the IWT, the Indian ambassador to Washington, Vinay Kwatra, wrote in The Week, ‘Pakistan spent half a century dismantling that goodwill and friendship. The abeyance merely acknowledges what Pakistan’s conduct had already destroyed.’ Pakistan’s ambassador responded in an article in the same magazine, discussing technical aspects of the treaty, bypassing India’s claim of ‘dismantling goodwill and friendship.’

  Islamabad approached the PCA in The Hague. India refused to participate. It was a one-sided representation. India rejected the court’s ruling mentioning, ‘This so-called Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions,’ adding, ‘Its pronouncements, now or in the future, will have no effect on India’s actions in connection with the projects being undertaken by India.’

Since India decided to stay away from PCA hearings, it was beggar Pakistan which was forced to pay for expenditure on both sides. This has been estimated to be USD 600,000 (300,000 per nation). It would have been cheaper for Pakistan to come to the negotiating table and discuss fresh terms and conditions, including stopping support to terrorism. It spent money and achieved nothing at the end of the day.

Pakistan has played every card up its sleeve, diplomatic, military and legal amongst others. Each card has failed. It has just one choice left. Adhere to India’s core demand of stopping terrorism and then re-negotiate the treaty. Unless it does so, it would continue crying with no avail, while the treaty will remain in abeyance.