In a growing multipolar order, India is downplaying international law. Thus, this argument is gaining traction that India’s chronic hawkishness, ultra-nationalism and apartheid-driven policy to unilaterally and forcefully occupy Kashmir– while relying on military control, heavy surveillances and unilateral legislative changes—are losing the ground as they fundamentally bypass the democratic Kashmiris’ right to self-determination enshrined in UN’ Charter and further endorsed by the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir. By violating the UN Charter and the UNSC resolutions, India has forfeited the claim that Kashmir is India’s integral part. Similarly, India’s 2025 move to unilaterally suspend the Indus Water Treaty—part of the broader Transboundary Water Governance Framework (TWFF)–has led the international community to conclude that, in pursuit of its hegemonic geopolitical motives , India has intentionally chosen an ultra-fascist plan to violate the established norms of international legitimacy.
India’s downplay of international law: After abrogating the article 370 which protected Kashmir special status and its self-autonomy, India’s recent move to suspend unjustifiably and illegally the Indus Water Treaty is a mega Indian design to undermine international legitimacy. India’s strategic and malafide use of “lawfare”—reappraising or altering legal frameworks —is central to South Asian regional instability. Critics argue that India’s unilateral decision in April 2025 to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in “abeyance” represents a continuation of the legal strategies deployed during the 2019 abrogation of Article 370. Together, these moves have transformed decades of established legal arrangements into instruments of ultra-fascism. Today, India has become a totalitarian state in South Asia.
Further, accusations of lawfare violations by India in Kashmir often center on alleged breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights norms, including arbitrary detentions, excessive use of force and suppression of free expression. Critics argue that India’s legal and military actions in the region undermine judicial fairness and due process, particularly following the revocation of Article 370 and 35A in 2019. India’s actions in Jammu and Kashmir and its ultra vires annexation of Kashmir remain at the heart of Kashmiris’ plight. The UN has consistently maintained its stance that the dispute should be settled in accordance with relevant Security Council resolutions, emphasizing the need for peaceful resolution and human rights. Furthermore, international law experts argue that the unilateral alteration of the territory’s status undermines the right to self-determination and violates the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force, this argument is also upheld by Fourth Geneva Convention.
Israel-India analogy in Kashmir: It refers to Indian strategists advocating for the adoption of Israeli administrative and security approaches in Jammu and Kashmir. Critics and international observers argue that India’s policies parallel Israeli tactics in the Palestinian territories. Demographic engineering: Altering the region’s demographics by issuing domiciles to non-residents, drawing comparisons to Israeli settlement policies. Militarized control: Utilizing similar approaches to handle local populations, including home and shop demolitions, spying using spyware and treating local populations as external threats. Attempting to bypass international laws and UN frameworks of self-determination to diminish the regions internationally recognized disputed status.
India set a dangerous precedent for TWGF:The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, is a pivotal agreement between India and Pakistan designed to ensure the equitable sharing of waters from the Indus River system, thereby ensuring Transboundary Water Governance Framework (TWGF). Historically, the IWT has long stood as an exemplary framework for managing shared rivers across borders. The treaty establishes a multi-layered conflict resolution mechanism, including bilateral commissions and arbitration panels, to address disputes. Its endurance through wars underscores its role as a model of water cooperation. Conversely, India’s self-projected and self-interpreted legal narratives–like rebus sic stantibus (fundamental change of circumstances—in no way allows — to unilaterally suspend the Indus Water Treaty( IWT )–and also holds no valid justification to fully exploit its allowed water quota under the treaty framework for infrastructure.The facts on ground say that The Indus Waters Treaty is a legally binding international agreement under international law and cannot be unilaterally suspended or revoked. Such actions are not only inconsistent with the principles of peaceful dispute resolution but also risk escalating regional tensions.
The fact remains that Islamabad profoundly relies on the IWT as its sovereign right, viewing its water right as inalienable and a core national security issue. Needless to say, this Indian action exemplifies ‘hawkish lawfare’—exploiting legal mechanisms to advance geopolitical aims—contrary to the norms of established treaties. The suspension not only risks regional stability but also sets a dangerous precedent for undermining multilateral agreements.That said, India’s broader legal shifts have dismantled the insulation that historically protected technical and resource arrangements from military conflict. And above all, rejecting the May 2026 Hague Court of Arbitration ruling, New Delhi has clearly signaled a shift toward an ultranationalist leverage over multilateral mechanisms. Make no mistake, the Rivers Indus and Sutlej originate in Tibet,and thus, as the upstream state to India, China has nonetheless strategic options to disturb the water flow into Indian rivers. And most importantly, India must bear in mind that Pakistan will never compromise on its sovereign water national interests.
To conclude, India has shown an ultra-fascist approach on two fronts: In Kashmir, It has used unilateral legislative changes, mass surveillance and military control to engineer demographic and constitutional lock-in, bypassing the UN Charter and the UNSC resolutions on self-determination. Simultaneously, by undermining the principle of pactasuntservanda (the treaty must be upheld), India uses water as a tool of coercion and hegemony against a lower riparian, violating a binding international agreement. Both these actions reveal the same pattern: replace law with arrogance and decree, replace negotiation with diktat and replace rights with force. Neither can Kashmir any longer be treated as an integral part of India, nor can the IWT be unilaterally suspended or redefined. In a multipolar order, such fascist lawfare is losing legitimacy, fundamentally because consent, not coercion, defines state credibility.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also a Peace and Conflict Studies expert, is member of the European Consortium of Political Research, including Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.
