The Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled on August 31 that the Indus Water Treaty remains in force and that India’s decision to place it in abeyance does not suspend its obligations under the agreement. India has categorically rejected this ruling, maintaining that the tribunal has no jurisdiction and that its decision does not affect India’s sovereign actions.

Chakra News spoke to Uttam Kumar Sinha, Senior Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) and author of two books on the Indus Water Treaty. “The larger challenge is not simply the legal ruling. It is about ensuring that India controls the narrative surrounding the Indus Waters Treaty while using the current situation to secure its legitimate interests in Jammu and Kashmir," Sinha says. 

He said that India needs to improve its international narrative on the IWT by avoiding phrases such as “stopping water” or “punishing Pakistan”. "Such language can strengthen Pakistan’s argument that India is using water as a weapon," he says. Instead, India should focus on the development needs of Jammu and Kashmir and explain that it is seeking to make greater use of the rights available to it under the treaty. India’s decision to place the IWT in abeyance is a strategic and sovereign decision linked to Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism.

According to Sinha, India’s position is not only about the technical provisions of the treaty. The agreement was built on an understanding of cooperation and goodwill between India and Pakistan. However, Pakistan’s sustained support for cross-border terrorism has fundamentally changed that relationship. India therefore linked the continuation of the treaty to Pakistan credibly and irreversibly ending its support for terrorism. The phrase by the Indian Prime Minister- “Blood and water cannot flow together” reflects this larger political and strategic position.

A major issue is the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism. The treaty provides for different stages depending on the nature of a dispute, beginning with the Indus Permanent Commission and moving to a Neutral Expert or a Court of Arbitration. India’s argument is that the dispute over projects should have followed the Neutral Expert route. India has participated in the Neutral Expert process but does not recognise the parallel Court of Arbitration proceedings, which it considers legally problematic.

Sinha described Pakistan’s approach as a form of “lawfare”, where legal mechanisms are used not only to seek a ruling but also to influence international opinion in its favour. Pakistan has relied on the treaty’s provisions, particularly Article 12, to argue that the agreement continues until it is formally terminated through a duly ratified treaty. India therefore needs to clearly explain that it has not abrogated the treaty but has placed it in abeyance because of the security situation and Pakistan’s support for terrorism.

The western rivers, namely- the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, are particularly important in this context. Sinha said these rivers should be viewed as an important resource for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Greater use of their waters can support activities such as irrigation, hydroelectric power, navigation and storage. India has historically made limited use of the provisions available to it on these rivers, and the present situation gives it an opportunity to accelerate infrastructure development.

Storage will also become increasingly important because of changing rainfall patterns and climate variability. Sinha believes India should focus particularly on the Chenab and Jhelum while developing projects that can contribute to the economic development and integration of Jammu and Kashmir. Projects such as construction of the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant are part of this broader approach and a step in the right direction, he says.

Sinha expects the treaty to remain in abeyance for a considerable period. He sees this as an opportunity for India to develop the necessary infrastructure while given the opportunity to continue to explain its position internationally. The present phase could eventually lead to discussions on modifying the existing treaty or negotiating a new arrangement, depending on how relations between India and Pakistan develop over the course.

The diplomatic battle, however, is likely to continue. Sinha said he does not expect major international measures such as sanctions or large-scale cuts in assistance against India. He does expect criticism and diplomatic pressure particularly from Western countries, but rather a neutral stance. Therefore, India needs to be more proactive in explaining the link between the treaty and cross-border terrorism.

Savio Rodrigues

Savio Rodrigues is a Research Analyst at Escape Velocity MediaWorks Pvt Ltd, where he writes extensively for Chakra Newz on defence, national security, geopolitics and emerging technologies. He holds a Master's degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies from the University of Mumbai and has experience in geopolitical risk analysis, strategic research and international affairs.