ON 31 August 2026, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), The Hague, Netherlands, announced its decision in the arbitration proceedings initiated by Pakistan against India under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960. According to Reuters, the Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that India remains bound by the Indus Waters Treaty and cannot simply place the agreement in abeyance amid bilateral tensions. The Court also issued an order concerning interim measures related to India’s construction of Ratle Hydroelectric Plant in Jammu and Kashmir.
India announced suspension of the IWT in April 2025 following deadly attack at a tourist destination in occupied Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed. India attributed responsibility to Pakistan, an allegation Islamabad has consistently rejected. Pakistan has also called for a neutral and impartial investigation into the incident.
Throughout the dispute, Pakistan has maintained that the Indus Waters Treaty does not permit either party to unilaterally suspend or place the agreement in abeyance. Islamabad has further stressed that waters of the Indus Basin are vital to Pakistan’s agriculture, economy and national water security.
Negotiated by India and Pakistan with the mediation of the World Bank, Indus Waters Treaty was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960, by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan. The Treaty divided Indus river system into two groups. The Eastern Rivers — Beas, Ravi and Sutlej — were allocated primarily for India’s use, while the Western Rivers — Indus, Chenab and Jhelum — were allocated primarily to Pakistan, subject to rights and conditions established under the Treaty. For more than six decades, the IWT has remained one of the most consequential and enduring examples of water-sharing arrangements between two states with a deeply complex relationship.
The PCA’s unanimous ruling is a significant development for Pakistan and an important reaffirmation of the principle that international agreements must be respected and addressed through legal mechanisms provided by those agreements. Pakistan should now continue to pursue implementation of the ruling through established diplomatic and legal channels. At the same time, India has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to international law and sanctity of treaty obligations by respecting the Court’s decision and engaging constructively on outstanding water-related issues.
Water is too vital to become a source of permanent confrontation between the two countries. The IWT was designed precisely to provide a stable framework for managing shared water resources despite political differences. Its preservation is therefore in the interest not only of Pakistan and India, but of long-term regional stability. Pakistan will, as it must, remain firm in protecting its legitimate water rights and vital national interests. At the same time, Islamabad should continue to seek solutions through international law, diplomacy and established dispute-resolution mechanisms. The message is loud and clear: differences between states can be managed; treaty obligations must be respected; and shared water resources should never become a tool of political coercion.
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Islamabad.
