ISLAMABAD: Information Minister Attaullah Tarar warned on Wednesday that the Indus Waters Treaty India abeyance decision could have consequences for transboundary water governance across the world, and urged the international community to take note of the wider precedent.
The warning on Indus Waters Treaty India abeyance
“If a state can unilaterally put a binding international water treaty in abeyance despite established dispute resolution mechanisms, the implications extend to transboundary water governance across the world,” Tarar said, adding that other countries sharing water under similar frameworks could be affected.
“We are a peaceful nation, but we cannot allow India to weaponise water because it is the basic right of the 240 million people of Pakistan,” he said, pointing to the “wider precedent involved”.
Background of the dispute
New Delhi’s Indus Waters Treaty India abeyance move in April last year preceded a brief military conflict between the two sides in May 2025. Pakistan responded by declaring any attempt to suspend its water share an “act of war”, noting the treaty has no provision for unilateral suspension.
Pakistan later argued that India’s action violated the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Tarar recalled an August ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which backed Pakistan’s stance and declared the treaty fully in force, saying India had no justification to end or suspend the agreement.
Pakistan’s legal position
Tarar held that the treaty remains legally binding on both parties and “contains stipulations that this legal instrument cannot be unilaterally revoked, rescinded, or altered”. Even where disputes arise, he said, both sides must adhere to the treaty’s terms.
He opened his address with a nod to national identity: “I take great pride in the fact that wherever we go, we say we are the people of the Indus Valley [..] we identify ourselves with the Indus waters.”
He was blunt about how he saw India’s conduct since the treaty was signed: the signatories, he said, “did not envisage that there would come a time a few decades down the line when conditions in India would deteriorate so much that they would be legally ignorant, morally bankrupt and devoid of ethics”.
Diplomacy and the UNGA speech
Tarar said Pakistan had handled the matter through diplomacy. “We have engaged the international community and presented our point of view — legal and diplomatic — and as a nation-state, which respected the rights of others, in a manner that has been most effective,” he said.
He recalled Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s recent speech at the United Nations General Assembly: “PM Shehbaz said that the IWT is the lifeblood of our people and our region, and any attempt to usurp this right be treated as an act of war.”
Pakistan’s position, Tarar added, remained “absolutely clear”, and he described the treaty as an “instrument of peace and stability for the region”.
On terrorism and economic cost
Tarar noted that India had justified its actions by pointing to alleged cross-border terrorism, but he highlighted Pakistan’s own sacrifices in fighting terrorism. “We have economic losses of over $50bn over the past many decades,” he said.
“When one Pakistani citizen lays down their life, yes, it is to make Pakistan safe, but it also makes the world a safer place,” he continued. He accused India of transnational aggression, saying “India has illegally tried to alter the status of the IWT and has been accused at the international level of transnational aggression”.
He called India’s actions “highly condemnable” at the legal, diplomatic and moral level.
What the treaty covers
The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty gives India the eastern rivers — the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej — while the western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — are largely allocated to Pakistan. It also sets up mechanisms for data-sharing and dispute resolution between the two countries.
What is the Indus Waters Treaty?
The Indus Waters Treaty is a 1960 water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan. It allocates the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) largely to Pakistan, with built-in mechanisms for data-sharing and dispute resolution.
Why did Tarar warn about a global precedent?
Tarar argued that if one country can unilaterally hold a binding international water treaty in abeyance despite established dispute-resolution mechanisms, other countries sharing water under similar frameworks could face the same risk.
What was the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling?
In an August ruling, the Permanent Court of Arbitration backed Pakistan’s stance, declaring that the IWT remained fully in force and that India had no justification for ending or suspending the agreement.
What is Pakistan’s stated position on the IWT?
Pakistan says the treaty cannot be unilaterally altered, revoked, rescinded or held in abeyance, and has termed the Indus Waters Treaty India abeyance an “act of war”. Tarar described this position as “absolutely clear”.
