Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters Syed Muhammad Mehar Ali Shah on Sunday said India’s claim of placing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in “abeyance” has no legal basis and that the treaty remains fully in force under international law.
In April 2025, India held the IWT in abeyance following the attack on tourists in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam that killed 26 — an incident New Delhi blamed on Islamabad without evidence. Pakistan termed any attempt to suspend its water share an “act of war”. In June, the Permanent Court of Arbitration held that India cannot unilaterally hold the treaty in abeyance.
Speaking on Geo News‘ programme ‘Jirga’, Shah talked about the legality of India holding the IWT in abeyance and said: “As far as holding the treaty in abeyance is concerned, the word ‘abeyance’ is not recognised under international treaty law. It is a coined term, because we believe India understands that it cannot suspend, breach or terminate the treaty.”
However, he cautioned that India’s continued non-cooperation within the rules-based framework, effectively sidestepping its obligations on self-created grounds, was “alarming” and prompted Pakistan to pursue a formal and carefully calibrated legal and diplomatic response.
“To address this, Pakistan is employing efforts carefully, and whatever steps are being taken are formal in nature,” he said.
He said the treaty was carefully negotiated to withstand political tensions and disputes, stressing that its dispute-resolution mechanism was designed to prevent unilateral actions.
About Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s threats of stopping the flow of Pakistan’s share of water, Shah asserted: “There is no room for stopping or partially stopping Pakistan’s water. This also goes against moral standards.
“Technically, if one party is stubborn on diverting the western rivers flowing into Pakistan, to reduce it to stop it, so naturally, there have been inter-basin transfer examples in the world,” he observed.
“When we gave the three eastern rivers to India, we have been facing consequences since the beginning of the treaty. Sutlej is always dry, barring the flooding season. Ravi is dry,” the water commissioner said.
Shah reiterated that any move by India to reduce water flows to Pakistan “would be considered an act of war”.
“There is no fixed amount of water allocated to Pakistan,” he said, adding that the waters should be available to Pakistan based on the “natural pattern of the western rivers”.
“So far, Chenab, Jhelum and Indus are receiving water in a natural pattern. But since April 24, 2025, India has created three such episodes, which we picked up — twice in May and once in December when they increased the flow, and then decreased the flow for a few days,” Shah pointed out.
Speaking about the procedures stated under the “well-thought-out” pact, Shah said one clause stated that in the face of conflict, Pakistan and India will peacefully solve the water matter. “Otherwise, they will hand it to a neutral party,” he added.
The official noted, “The 12th and last article of this treaty has four provisions. In the last paragraph, it says that with the passage of time, some changes can be made to the pact, but both parties have to mutually agree; otherwise, the pact will remain fully enforced.
“And it clearly says that no one party can unilaterally change it,” the water commissioner stressed.
Asked whether the IWT favoured India, Shah replied that the three eastern rivers — Beas, Ravi and Sutlej — have a “geographic advantage”, unlike the western rivers.
Recalling the history of water disputes between the two neighbours, Shah said India halted the rivers’ flow to Pakistan on March 31, 1948, which Pakistan protested on a bilateral level and took the issue to the United Nations.
After the IWT was agreed upon in 1960, India first violated the pact when it was building the Salal Dam, with which Pakistan had issues, and they were subsequently resolved through the treaty.
“The pact does not have a guarantor as such, but it has its own mechanism,” the official observed.
The water commissioner said the basic feature of the IWT was that the western rivers’ natural flow must not be altered.
“India was allowed to use the western rivers for hydroelectric power generation only in line with the pact guidelines. If there is a violation, then any party can take the matter to a third forum,” Shah said.
Providing an example of such an instance, Shah recalled that Pakistan decided to take the matter to a third forum when India built the Baglihar Dam on the western rivers, “violating five of the conditions”.
The official noted there were two third-party forums where conflicts could be taken — “one is a neutral forum, and the other is the Court of Arbitration forum”. The procedure for it, Shah added, was that the water commissioners must inform each other and suggest whether the matter should go to a neutral party or a court.
“So if one party does not agree to going to the court, for instance, then the matter must go to a neutral party, who will decide whether the matter falls within their expertise,” he explained, adding that internationally recognised experts are part of the team when the issue is taken to a neutral forum.
“When the Baglihar Dam decision was taken, it was not in favour of Pakistan. The extent of that decision was only confined to the Baglihar Dam and it did not apply to any future development plans,” Shah said.
The water commissioner highlighted that although Pakistan did not agree with the decision, it was binding under the IWT.
“So in order to stop India from taking future decisions based on the decision of the Baglihar Dam, Pakistan filed a case at the Court of Arbitration for a general interpretation.”
Detailing more water conflicts, Shah said that after Baglihar, Pakistan raised the issue about India constructing the 850 megawatt Ratle Hydroelectric Plant on the Chenab river bilaterally first, and also went to a third forum.
The water commissioner then mentioned that Pakistan had also raised objections on the Kiru and Kwar hydroelectric projects in India, whose designs New Delhi shared with Islamabad prior to the April 2025 developments.
from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/CRYEIjo
0 comments: