Experts Say India Lacks Justification to Hold IWT in Abeyance Following Historic Hague Court Ruling

PESHAWAR, May 31 (APP): Political and international relations experts here Sunday said that International Court of Arbitration (ICA) at Hague Netherland has passed clear ruling in favour of Indus Water Treaty ((IWT) and now no justification was left with India to hold the historic treaty in abeyance anymore.

While deploring India’s rejection of the recent ruling by the Court of Arbitration (CoA) concerning IWT, the experts described the New Delhi’s position as an insult to international law, treaty obligations, and established dispute-resolution mechanisms.

The experts argued that India’s refusal to recognize the authority of the Court of Arbitration, despite its establishment under provisions of the IWT, undermines confidence in international agreements and threatens regional peace and stability in South Asia.

The criticism follows a recent statement issued by India’s Ministry of External Affairs in which New Delhi rejected the authority of the arbitration court and reiterated its position that it does not recognize the court constituted under the treaty’s dispute settlement framework.

The statement came after the Court of Arbitration, seated in The Hague, Netherlands, reaffirmed its supplementary award concerning disputes related to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects and maintained that the treaty remains binding on both countries and no state can suspend it unilaterally.

Professor Dr. A.H. Hilali, former Chairman Political Science Department at University of Peshawar said India’s stance reflected a troubling disregard for international legal norms and commitments.

“The IWT is not a political arrangement that can be suspended or ignored at will. It is an internationally recognized treaty brokered by the World Bank and has survived wars, political crises, and decades of hostility between the two countries,” he told APP.

He said India’s rejection of the arbitration process weakened the principles upon which international agreements are built.

“When states begin selecting which international obligations to honour and which to ignore, the entire structure of international law and justice comes under mounting pressure and ultimately create anarchy and conflict,” he remarked.

He emphasized that the Court of Arbitration was constituted under procedures already agreed upon by both Pakistan and India within the treaty framework and IWT cannot be placed under “Experts Say India Lacks Justification to Hold IWT in Abeyance Following Historic Hague Court Ruling”.

“The tribunal’s authority flows directly from the treaty itself. Rejecting its jurisdiction after participating in the treaty for decades raises serious legal and diplomatic questions,” he added.

He warned that unilateral actions regarding trans boundary water resources could further inflame tensions between two nuclear-armed neighbours.

“Water security is directly linked to food security, economic stability and human survival. Any disruption to agreed water-sharing arrangements carries consequences that extend far beyond bilateral relations,” he said.

According to him, the treaty has long served as one of the few functioning mechanisms of cooperation between Pakistan and India.

“The suspension or weakening of the treaty could remove an important stabilizing factor in South Asia,” he observed.

Signed in 1960 with the assistance of the World Bank, the IWT allocates the waters of six rivers of the Indus Basin between Pakistan and India.

Under the agreement, Pakistan enjoys primary rights over the western rivers namely Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab while India has control over the eastern rivers of Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej.

The treaty is often cited by international experts as one of the world’s most successful water-sharing agreements, having survived several wars and prolonged periods of political hostility.

Former Ambassador Manzoorul Haq said the treaty’s long durability demonstrates its strategic importance and India has lost all legal and diplomatic grounds after international Court of Arbitration ruling.

“For more than six decades, the treaty has provided a predictable legal framework for water management. Weakening it could create uncertainty not only for Pakistan and India but also for other countries that rely on international river agreements,” he said.

The experts expressed concern over recent fluctuations in water flows in the Chenab River and termed such negative tactics by India was tantamount of using water as a weapon.

Pakistan has repeatedly raised concerns regarding unusual changes in river Chanab flows in December last year and the absence of timely information sharing. Such actions violate the spirit and procedures of the treaty,” he reiterated.

He maintained that transparency, advance notification, and data exchange are fundamental obligations under the treaty.

“Any unilateral action affecting river flows creates mistrust and increases tensions at a time when cooperation is needed most,” he said.

According to experts, water manipulation during critical agricultural seasons could have severe implications for farmers and rural communities dependent on irrigation.

Professor Dr. Khurshid Khan of University of Peshawar, said the recent international court of arbitration ruling significantly strengthened Pakistan’s legal position.

“India cannot unilaterally place the treaty in abeyance. The latest ruling has reaffirmed that international commitments remain binding and that disputes must be resolved through agreed legal mechanisms,” he told APP.

He described the court’s findings as a significant development in the long-running water dispute.

“By refusing to participate in the arbitration proceedings while simultaneously questioning their legitimacy, India has weakened its legal arguments before the international community,” he asserted.

He argued that the controversy surrounding the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects highlights broader concerns regarding compliance with treaty obligations.

“The dispute is not simply about dams. It is about ensuring that both parties adhere to procedures that prevent unilateral actions and preserve mutual trust,” he explained.

If demands of India was an upper riparian country was accepted then in future China can also adopt such narrative that will adversally affect New Delhi.

Experts stressed that water remains the lifeblood of Pakistan’s agricultural economy, supporting millions of livelihoods and contributing substantially to national food production.

He warned that any interruption in water availability could have profound humanitarian and economic consequences besides energy crisis.

“When water becomes uncertain, agriculture suffers. When agriculture suffers, food security, employment, and economic stability are all affected,” he said.

He added that international law increasingly recognizes access to water as a critical component of human security.

“Water should never become a tool of political pressure. The consequences are borne not by governments alone but by ordinary people,” he reiterated.

The experts urged the international community, including the World Bank and relevant international institutions, to force India to honour their commitments under the treaty and immediately restore it.

“The World Bank played a central role in facilitating this historic agreement and remains an important stakeholder in ensuring its continued implementation,” Ambassador Manzoor said.

He called upon international organizations to support dialogue, transparency, and treaty compliance.

“The objective should not be confrontation but preservation of a framework that has contributed to regional stability for more than six decades,” he added.

Legal observers believed the IWT violations by India carries implications beyond South Asia as it set a negative precedence.

“The issue ultimately concerns respect for international agreements and dispute-resolution mechanisms,” said legal analyst Advocate Nouman Bokhari.

“If treaty-based arbitration can be disregarded whenever outcomes are politically inconvenient, it risks weakening confidence in international law globally.”

Experts concluded that the IWT remains one of the most important confidence-building measures between Pakistan and India and that preserving its integrity is essential for regional peace, sustainable water management, and long-term stability.

“The treaty has survived wars and crises because both sides recognized its value,” said Dr. Khurshid.

The experts said war was no solution to any problem and IWT’s future should be determined through dialogue, law, and mutual respect and not through unilateral actions.