New Delhi: The Indus waters treaty suspension issue has entered a new phase after India rejected a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) regarding the treaty with Pakistan.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated that the arbitration body was “illegally constituted” and has no authority to decide on India’s sovereign actions. The dispute comes amid growing tensions between India and Pakistan following recent security developments and disagreements over water-sharing arrangements.
What Happened In The Latest Indus Waters Treaty Suspension Dispute
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued an award concerning interim measures and the status of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
Read also: This is Main Reason Behind Complete Suspension of Indus Waters Treaty
The court concluded that the treaty remains in force and that India must continue fulfilling its obligations under the agreement. The ruling also addressed India’s hydroelectric projects on western rivers covered by the treaty. However, India immediately rejected the decision.
The Ministry of External Affairs said the arbitration body lacks jurisdiction and that its observations have no impact on India’s actions or decisions.
Indus Waters Treaty Suspension: What Did India Say
According to the MEA, India has never recognized the legal validity of the Court of Arbitration established under this dispute process. The government stated that the tribunal was formed in violation of the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty and therefore its decisions are not binding on India.
No Jurisdiction Over Sovereign Decisions
India said the court has “no jurisdiction whatsoever” to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions. The MEA further stated that any current or future rulings from the arbitration body will not affect India’s policy decisions regarding water projects or treaty-related actions.
Why Was The Treaty Put In Abeyance
India decided to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance after the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians.
New Delhi linked the attack to Pakistan-based elements and announced several diplomatic and economic measures. Pakistan denied involvement in the incident.
Impact On Water Projects
Since then, India has accelerated work on several hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir. These projects have long been a point of disagreement between India and Pakistan under the treaty framework.
What Did The Arbitration Court Rule
The Court of Arbitration ruled that the Indus Waters Treaty remains legally valid. According to the tribunal, the treaty does not contain provisions that allow either country to suspend or terminate it unilaterally. Any major change would require agreement from both nations.
Indus Waters Treaty Suspension: Restrictions On Hydropower Construction
The tribunal also directed India to maintain certain restrictions on construction activities related to the Ratle Hydroelectric Project until a World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert delivers a final decision. That assessment is expected in 2027.
What is Indus Waters Treaty
The Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan with the World Bank acting as a facilitator. It governs the sharing of waters from the Indus River system and is often regarded as one of the world’s most enduring water-sharing agreements.
Why The Treaty Matters
The treaty plays a critical role in water management for both countries. It allocates the eastern rivers largely to India while giving Pakistan rights over most waters from the western rivers, subject to specific conditions for Indian projects.
Read also: China Or Pakistan? Former Army Chief Reveals Which Challenge Matters More For India
FAQs
The Indus Waters Treaty is a 1960 water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan that regulates the use of waters from the Indus River system.
India rejected the ruling because it considers the Court of Arbitration to be illegally constituted and believes the tribunal has no jurisdiction over India’s sovereign decisions.
India has stated that the treaty remains in abeyance, but the arbitration court ruled that the agreement remains legally in force.
