Abdullah Umar
THE unfolding legal and diplomatic trajectory surrounding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has steadily transformed into a defining indictment of India’s increasingly unilateral and revisionist conduct in international affairs.
What began as an attempt by New Delhi to politically weaponize water after the April 2025 Pahalgam incident has now evolved into a sustained series of international legal, procedural and diplomatic setbacks for India, while simultaneously reinforcing Pakistan’s standing as a state committed to treaty sanctity, lawful conduct and rules-based dispute resolution.
The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, remains one of the world’s most enduring and legally binding transboundary water-sharing agreements. The treaty clearly allocates the Eastern Rivers to India and the Western Rivers to Pakistan, while permitting India only limited, carefully regulated usage on the Western rivers through run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects. The treaty neither permits unilateral suspension nor allows political circumstances to override binding obligations. Yet in April 2025, India attempted precisely that. In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, New Delhi declared the treaty to be in “abeyance”, despite the complete absence of any such provision within the agreement itself. The move immediately triggered widespread legal criticism, with international experts pointing out that treaties are not political switchboards to be turned on and off at convenience. India’s action exposed a troubling mindset increasingly visible in its regional conduct: The belief that power can supersede law and that political expediency can override treaty obligations. Pakistan responded not through escalation, but through law. Islamabad activated the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanisms and systematically placed India’s conduct before international legal and diplomatic forums.
In June 2025, Pakistan formally raised India’s unlawful conduct regarding the IWT before the United Nations Security Council, where India was urged to restore full implementation of the treaty. The same month, the Court of Arbitration decisively reaffirmed its competence despite India’s boycott of proceedings, rejecting the broader logic underpinning India’s unilateral suspension narrative. The message was unmistakable: one party cannot simply walk away from binding international processes because outcomes may prove inconvenient.
The legal momentum continued to move against India. In August 2025, the Court of Arbitration upheld key principles governing interpretation of the treaty, reinforcing Pakistan’s protected rights over the Western rivers and affirming the binding limitations placed upon Indian hydroelectric projects. By October 2025, even United Nations Special Rapporteurs had raised concerns regarding both the human rights implications and treaty-obligation dimensions of India’s actions. The issue was no longer confined to a bilateral disagreement; it had become part of a growing international record documenting concerns regarding India’s approach toward international commitments and lawful dispute resolution.
India’s refusal to participate in proceedings also failed to obstruct the legal process itself. In November 2025, the Neutral Expert ruled that India’s non-participation could not halt proceedings under the treaty framework. That ruling further weakened New Delhi’s attempt to delegitimize established mechanisms merely by refusing engagement. The pressure intensified in March 2026, when the Neutral Expert permitted Pakistan to share critical operational and engineering data concerning the Kishanganga, Ratle and Baglihar projects with the Court of Arbitration. The decision significantly undercut India’s obstructionist posture and strengthened Pakistan’s evidentiary position before the tribunal.
The latest and perhaps most consequential development arrived on 15 May 2026, when the Court of Arbitration issued its Supplemental Award concerning Maximum Pondage. The ruling dealt another major blow to India’s long-standing attempts to stretch engineering discretion beyond treaty limits. The Court concluded that the installed capacity and anticipated operational load of Indian run-of-the-river hydroelectric plants on the Western rivers must correspond to actual operational realities, hydrological data and hydraulic conditions. Crucially, the
Court also affirmed that India is obligated to provide Pakistan with all relevant technical information necessary for assessing the actual operation of such projects. The ruling additionally addressed India’s obligations regarding minimum environmental flows, reinforcing that ecological and downstream considerations cannot be ignored under the guise of infrastructure development. Collectively, these rulings have established a clear and undeniable pattern: the law is moving with Pakistan, while defiance is moving with India. For years, India sought to project itself internationally as a responsible rising power and defender of a rules-based global order. Yet its conduct under the Indus Waters Treaty increasingly tells a different story. A state aspiring for global leadership cannot simultaneously behave like a treaty-breaker in the Indus Basin. Arbitration cannot be celebrated when convenient and discarded when accountability emerges. Treaties cannot be treated as temporary political instruments subject to domestic mood swings.
The deeper issue for India is no longer Pakistan alone. It is the growing accumulation of international legal findings, procedural rulings and diplomatic observations documenting a pattern of exceptionalism, evasion and contempt for binding obligations. Pakistan, meanwhile, has consistently anchored its position in law, dialogue, procedure and treaty sanctity. Rather than abandoning institutions, it utilized them. Rather than threatening regional instability, it sought adjudication. Rather than politicizing water, it defended internationally recognized water rights through lawful means. The world is now watching a broader test unfold: whether international agreements retain meaning when confronted by unilateral power politics. So far, the legal record has delivered a remarkably consistent answer. Treaties remain binding. Arbitration remains legitimate. Water cannot be weaponized.
