Pakistan’s perspective on India’s abeyance of Indus Waters Treaty

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), brokered by the World Bank in 1960, has been a cornerstone of transboundary water cooperation between India and Pakistan for over six decades. However, India’s recent decision to unilaterally suspend the treaty following the Pahalgam attack (June 2025) marks a dangerous escalation in the use of water as a geopolitical weapon. 

From Pakistan’s perspective, this move is not only legally untenable but also a grave threat to its food security, economy, and regional stability. This document outlines Pakistan’s legal recourse, strategic countermeasures, and the broader implications of India’s actions under international law.

Can India Legally Stop Water Flows to Pakistan? An International Legal Perspective

1. India’s Legal Capacity to Halt Water Flows Under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)

The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) explicitly governs water distribution between India and Pakistan, allocating:

• Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej): Full control to India (with limited non-consumptive use for Pakistan).
• Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab): Guaranteed flow to Pakistan, with India permitted limited storage and hydroelectric use.

2. Can India Legally Stop Western Rivers’ Water?

• No unilateral stoppage allowed: The IWT does not grant India the right to completely block water to Pakistan.
• Permitted uses only: India can build run-of-the-river hydro projects (no large storage) and use water for non-consumptive purposes (e.g., electricity generation).
• Violation if India diverts or blocks: Any attempt to cut off or excessively store Western Rivers’ water breaches Article III (Pakistan’s unrestricted use) and Annexure D (storage limits).

3. International Law on Water Suspension: Key Principles

Even if India claims “abeyance” (temporary suspension), international law imposes strict limits:

A. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)

Article 60 (Termination/Suspension): Only valid if Pakistan commits a “material breach” (e.g., repudiating the treaty or violating essential terms).
Pakistan has not done so—using arbitration (Kishenganga/Ratle cases) is permitted under IWT dispute mechanisms.
Article 62 (Fundamental Change of Circumstances): Does not apply—political tensions (e.g., terrorism) do not alter the treaty’s water-sharing purpose (ICJ ruling in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case).

B. UN Watercourses Convention (1997)

Equitable & Reasonable Utilization (Article 5): India cannot disproportionately harm Pakistan’s water rights.
No Significant Harm Rule (Article 7): Cutting off water violates Pakistan’s right to livelihood, agriculture, and drinking water.

C. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

If India weaponizes water, it could amount to:
Collective punishment (prohibited under Geneva Conventions).
Crime against humanity (via mass starvation, per Rome Statute).

Is “Abeyance” a Valid Legal Concept in International Law?

1. Definition of Abeyance

• Temporary suspension of treaty obligations (not termination).
• No explicit recognition in the Vienna Convention but sometimes used in state practice.

2. Legal Validity of India’s “Abeyance” Claim

• No Basis in the IWT: The treaty does not allow temporary suspension for political reasons.

ICJ Precedent Against It:

• In Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, Hungary tried suspending a water treaty—ICJ ruled unilateral suspension illegal.
• Only mutual agreement or UNSC sanctions can justify suspension.

Risk of Illegal Countermeasure:

• Under customary international law, countermeasures must be:

1. Proportionate (India’s total suspension is excessive).
2. Reversible (long-term harm to Pakistan makes this doubtful).

3. Consequences of Invalid Abeyance

• Pakistan can challenge in ICJ/World Bank for treaty violation.
• World Bank (IWT guarantor) may freeze funding for Indian projects.
• UNSC could intervene if framed as a threat to peace (though veto risks exist).

Conclusion: India Cannot Legally Stop Water to Pakistan

1. IWT binds India to let Western Rivers flow—no legal right to block.
2. “Abeyance” has no standing—only mutual agreement or UNSC order can suspend treaties.
3. Pakistan’s recourse:

1. World Bank arbitration (compel India to restore flows).
2. ICJ case (for breach of UN Watercourses Convention).
3. Diplomatic pressure (OIC, UN, China-backed resolutions).

India’s move is a dangerous precedent in “water wars”—but international law firmly sides with Pakistan’s rights.

Legal Analysis: India’s Suspension and Violations of International Law

1. Invalidity of India’s Claims Under the Vienna Convention

India justifies its suspension of the IWT by invoking Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), alleging a “material breach” by Pakistan. However, We can categorically rejects this argument for the following reasons:

• No Material Breach by Pakistan:

1. The IWT is a technical water-sharing agreement, not a counter-terrorism pact. India’s attempt to link Pakistan’s alleged support for militants to the treaty is legally irrelevant.
2. Pakistan has not repudiated the treaty nor violated its “essential provisions.” Dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g., Kishenganga arbitration) are permissible under the IWT and do not constitute a breach.

• Precedent from the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case (1997):

1. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that political tensions or unilateral grievances (e.g., terrorism allegations) do not justify treaty termination.
2. The ICJ’s strict interpretation of Article 62 (fundamental change of circumstances) further undermines India’s position.

2. Violation of Customary International Law

India’s suspension of water flows could constitute:

• Collective Punishment: Depriving millions of civilians of water violates international humanitarian law and the UN Watercourses Convention (1997), which mandates equitable and reasonable utilization.
• Disproportionate Countermeasure: Under the UN Charter (Article 51), any response must be proportional. India’s actions far exceed this threshold.

Pakistan’s Legal Recourse

Pakistan can challenge India’s actions through multiple forums:

1. World Bank Arbitration (Article IX of IWT)

• The IWT mandates neutral expert intervention for disputes. Pakistan can demand urgent arbitration to enforce India’s compliance.
• Precedent: The 2013 Kishenganga ruling forced India to modify its dam design.

2. International Court of Justice (ICJ)

• Pakistan can file a case citing:

1. Breach of the UN Watercourses Convention (equitable utilization).
2. Violation of the IWT’s core provisions (e.g., unrestricted flow of Western Rivers).

3. United Nations Security Council (UNSC)

• Pakistan, with support from allies like China, can table a resolution condemning India’s actions as a threat to regional peace.
• Risk: Potential veto by Russia or other powers.

Strategic Countermeasures for Pakistan

1. Hydrological Resilience

• Accelerate Dam Projects: Fast-track completion of Diamer-Bhasha Dam (2026) to enhance water storage.
• Cloud Seeding: Invest in technology to augment rainfall and glacier replenishment.

2. Diplomatic Offensive

• Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Summit: Mobilize Muslim-majority nations to pressure India.
• Leverage CPEC: Secure Chinese support for infrastructure and legal advocacy.

3. Economic and Humanitarian Safeguards

• Diversify Agriculture: Shift to drought-resistant crops to mitigate losses.
• International Aid Appeals: Highlight the humanitarian crisis to secure UN and donor assistance.

Global Implications and Precedents

India’s actions set a perilous precedent for transboundary water conflicts:

• Türkiye could mimic similar tactics against Syria and Iraq over the Euphrates.
• Ethiopia might harden its stance on the Nile Dam dispute, escalating tensions with Egypt and Sudan.
• Climate Change Multiplier: Melting glaciers and water scarcity will exacerbate such conflicts, risking “21st-century water wars.”

Conclusion and Recommendations

India’s suspension of the IWT is a blatant violation of international law and an existential threat to Pakistan. While legal avenues offer some recourse, the urgency demands immediate action:

1. Exhaust All Legal Channels: File cases at the ICJ and World Bank to force India’s compliance.
2. Strengthen Water Infrastructure: Reduce dependency on Indian-controlled rivers through dams and alternative sources.
3. Global Coalition-Building: Rally international support to condemn hydrological warfare and uphold the IWT.

Indus crisis is not just a bilateral issue—it is a test of the world’s commitment to preventing resource-driven conflicts. Pakistan must act decisively to safeguard its survival and set a precedent against the weaponization of water.