Depriving Pakistan of Indus water entail consequences for regional peace, security: DPM

ISLAMABAD, Aug 28 (APP): Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar Friday said any attempt to deprive Pakistan of the waters rightfully allocated to it under the Indus Waters Treaty would have profound consequences for regional peace and security.

In a virtual keynote address at a seminar on “The Indus Waters Treaty: South Asian Security at the Crossroads,” organized by the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, he said, “Pakistan remains committed to peaceful settlement of issues because lasting peace can only rest upon sovereign equality, mutual respect and the faithful implementation of international obligations. At the same time, there should be no misunderstanding about the seriousness with which Pakistan regards its water rights.”

He said, “The Indus Waters Treaty is not merely an agreement about water. It is a legal framework governing a vital shared resource, an instrument of regional stability, and today, an important test of the sanctity of international agreements.”

“Water is fundamental to human dignity, food security, economic development and environmental sustainability. Where rivers cross national boundaries, geography creates permanent interdependence,” he added.

He said, “The choice for States is therefore not whether to coexist, but whether to manage that interdependence through cooperation and law, or through uncertainty and coercion. It was in recognition of this reality that Pakistan and India concluded the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960, after years of negotiations facilitated by the World Bank.”

“The Treaty represented an important act of statecraft. It established a durable legal framework for the management of the Indus Basin. The three Eastern Rivers, the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, were allocated to India for unrestricted use, while the waters of the three Western Rivers, the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, were allocated for Pakistan’s unrestricted use, subject to the specific and carefully defined uses permitted to India under the Treaty,” he explained.

He said, “Importantly, the Treaty replaced upstream discretion with mutually agreed rules. It established the Permanent Indus Commission and created a carefully calibrated mechanism for addressing questions, differences and disputes, including through the Commission, government-to-government engagement, a Neutral Expert and, where required, a Court of Arbitration.”

“That institutional architecture was not incidental to the Treaty. It was central to the bargain,” he remarked.

He reminded that for more than six decades, the Indus Waters Treaty endured wars, military crises, diplomatic breakdowns and prolonged periods of political tension between Pakistan and India.

“Its resilience demonstrated a simple but powerful principle: even the most difficult relationships can sustain cooperation when agreed rules are respected. The Treaty endured because both countries understood that waters upon which hundreds of millions of lives depend are too fundamental to be subjected to the fluctuations of political relations. Today, however, that principle faces its gravest challenge,” he continued.

“India’s unilateral decision in April 2025 to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance has no basis in the Treaty. The Treaty contains no provision permitting either party to unilaterally suspend or place it in abeyance. Nor can either party, through a unilateral political declaration, extinguish obligations solemnly undertaken under international law,” he stressed.

He said, “Pakistan’s position is therefore clear and consistent: the Indus Waters Treaty remains valid, binding and fully operative. Indeed, Treaty-based proceedings have continued despite India’s assertion of “abeyance”, reinforcing the fundamental principle that unilateral action cannot displace an agreed legal framework.”

“The treaty concerns the sanctity of treaties. It concerns confidence in international law. And it concerns the fundamental proposition that geography must never become a licence for an upstream State to exercise political leverage over the lives and livelihoods of a downstream population. For Pakistan, this is not an abstract legal debate,” he asserted.

Ishaq Dar said, “The Indus Basin is the lifeline of more than 250 million Pakistanis. Our agriculture, food security, energy production, livelihoods and economic development are deeply dependent upon the waters of the Indus River system. Water security for Pakistan is therefore inseparable from economic security, food security and, ultimately, national security.”

“The implications of unilateral interference with such an arrangement are consequently profound. They affect not only the stability of South Asia but create a dangerous precedent for treaty relations everywhere. International agreements derive their value from certainty and predictability. If solemn treaty obligations can simply be set aside whenever political relations deteriorate, the very purpose of concluding the treaties is undermined,” he added.

He said, “This principle assumes particular importance in relation to transboundary rivers. Governments may change. Political relations may deteriorate. States may disagree profoundly with one another. But geography remains. States cannot alter the direction in which rivers flow.”

He said, “The international community therefore has a legitimate interest in preserving treaty-based water governance in South Asia. Respect for international agreements is not a bilateral concern alone. It is part of the wider legal architecture upon which stable and peaceful relations among States depend. The challenge becomes even more acute when viewed against the realities of climate change.”

“Pakistan is already among the world’s most water-stressed countries. Over the decades, our per capita water availability has declined dramatically. Changing precipitation patterns, glacial retreat, devastating floods, prolonged droughts and increasing hydrological variability are placing additional pressure on an already stressed system,” he recalled.

“They require improved and transparent data-sharing, sustained technical engagement, greater transparency and collective efforts to strengthen climate resilience,” he added.

He was of the view that the Indus Waters Treaty was designed precisely to withstand disagreement. Its dispute-settlement architecture exists because its framers understood that differences between Pakistan and India could arise.

“We have invoked Treaty mechanisms because that is what the Treaty requires. Resort to the Permanent Indus Commission, a Neutral Expert or a Court of Arbitration is not an act of confrontation. It is the implementation of the very legal framework to which both countries agreed and are bound. Recent arbitral proceedings have further reinforced that Treaty-based processes cannot be defeated simply through non-participation or unilateral assertions, while recent awards have continued to clarify the substantive limits governing projects on the Western Rivers,” he concluded.