IN a recent Newsweek opinion piece titled “A Treaty Pakistan Destroyed Long Before India Set It Aside,” Indian Ambassador to United States Vinay Mohan Kwatra offered a politically charged defence of India’s decision to place the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in unilateral abeyance. The article attempts to shift blame onto Pakistan while framing the treaty as a casualty of regional political friction. However, this rhetoric overlooks a fundamental reality that the Indus Waters Treaty is a binding international agreement governed by law, not a political instrument that can be suspended at will.
As we all know that it was signed in 1960 following decade-long negotiations brokered by the World Bank. The treaty established a vital legal framework for transboundary water sharing in South Asia. Crucially, the agreement was deliberately engineered to be crisis-proof. It was built specifically to endure periods of intense diplomatic hostility, military standoffs, and major wars including the conflicts of 1965, 1971, and 1999 – without having water sharing held hostage to bilateral disputes. India’s attempt to manufacture a unilateral abeyance power represents a dangerous departure from global norms.
Under international law and the governing principle of pacta sunt servanda, that agreements must be kept in good faith, treaty obligations cannot be made contingent upon political relations. The text of the IWT contains no provision permitting one-sided suspension. Under Article XII (4), the treaty remains continuously in force until it is formally modified or replaced by a new, duly ratified treaty concluded by both governments.
India seeks to justify its non-compliance by pointing to security grievances and cross-border terrorism allegations. Yet, political accusations cannot substitute for independently established legal proof. Pakistan has repeatedly condemned terrorism, suffered immense human and economic losses from it, and consistently called for credible, impartial international investigations rather than unilateral blame. UN Special Rapporteurs have similarly noted that India has failed to present credible evidence linking Pakistan to key security claims before international forums. Unsubstantiated claims do not grant any state a license to breach binding treaty commitments.
Furthermore, India’s public narrative often focuses on total annual water allocations to argue the treaty is unequal. This framing is deeply misleading. Transboundary water security depends heavily on timing, predictability and flow continuity. Pakistan’s agricultural sector, food security and human livelihoods rely on receiving predictable flows during critical farming seasons. A temporary manipulation of water timing can cause devastating downstream economic and humanitarian consequences that volume percentages fail to capture.IWT includes an exclusive, built-in dispute resolution framework. Invoking a Neutral Expert or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague is an explicit legal right, not political obstructionism. India’s refusal to participate in PCA proceedings does not invalidate international law; rather, it highlights an attempt to evade judicial scrutiny. Every formal determination by international legal bodies continues to reinforce the treaty’s validity.
As highlighted during the Islamabad International Seminar on the IWT on June 30, 2026, domestic political narratives must remain separate from binding transboundary obligations. Water is a shared necessity, not a coercive bargaining chip. Full adherence to the Indus Waters Treaty and its agreed dispute mechanisms remains the only lawful and sustainable path to regional stability in South Asia.
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Islamabad.
