India cannot unilaterally hold IWT in abeyance after PCA verdict, World Bank guarantee
PESHAWAR (APP): Following the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, water sharing emerged as a critical issue between the newly formed states of Pakistan and India.
The problem stemmed from the geographical reality that the headworks and control of major rivers lay in Indian territory, while water utilisation occurred downstream in Pakistan.
Resultantly, disputes over water distribution escalated, intensifying bilateral tensions and contributing to armed conflict between the two countries on water issue. In an effort to avert further hostilities, a temporary agreement was reached in 1948 between the two countries. However, its fragile nature underscored the need for a comprehensive and permanent arrangement, eventually leading to the formulation of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in 1960.
The IWT was signed on September 19, 1960, under the auspices of the World Bank, which also serves as a guarantor of the agreement. The treaty governs the distribution of the six rivers of the Indus Basin system, allocating the eastern rivers namely Ravi, Beas and Sutlej to India, while granting Pakistan rights over the western rivers includes Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.
The treaty further established the Permanent Indus Commission (IWC), comprising representatives from both countries, and laid down a detailed dispute resolution mechanism (DRM) involving neutral experts and international arbitration. This framework reflects the intent of both states to resolve disagreements through peaceful and legal means.
Speaking to APP, Barrister Noman Mohib Kakakhel, an expert in international law, said that under the provisions of the IWT and fundamental principles of international law, no state can suspend or hold the treaty in abeyance unilaterally, reiterating that the treaty is binding on both countries.
“The term ‘abeyance’ is not recognised under an international treaty law,” he explained, describing it as a coined expression. “India is aware that it cannot suspend, breach or terminate the treaty unilaterally under any rules or principle of international law.”
He said these principles are codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which governs the creation, interpretation and termination of treaties. Under Article 54 of the VCLT, a bilateral treaty may only be terminated in accordance with its provisions or with the mutual consent of both parties.
“As IWT contains no termination clause, India cannot withdraw from it without Pakistan’s consent,” Barrister Kakakhel reiterated, warning that any unilateral action could invite serious diplomatic and security repercussions and violate customary international law.
In June 2025, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague ruled that India cannot unilaterally suspend or hold the IWT in abeyance. The PCA affirmed that the treaty remains in force and that its compulsory dispute resolution mechanism cannot be obstructed. The World Bank, as a signatory and guarantor, has also maintained that the treaty cannot be altered or suspend without mutual agreement.
Former ambassador Manzoorul Haq described the IWT as more than a bilateral agreement, calling it a matter of national security, economic survival and a lifeline for Pakistan’s agriculture.
“The western rivers namely Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are vital to Pakistan’s agricultural productivity, which underpins food security and the national economy,” he said. “Any unilateral attempt to suspend or alter the treaty would not only damage Pakistan’s agriculture but also set a dangerous precedent in international diplomacy.”
He emphasised that the absence of a termination clause bars India from unilateral withdrawal and that the treaty’s dispute resolution framework promotes dialogue rather than confrontation on water issue.
Ambassador Manzoorul Haq warned that attempts to obstruct Pakistan’s water flows would be viewed as an act of war, placing responsibility squarely on New Delhi for any escalation. He added that such uncalled for actions have already harmed India’s international standing and could strain its relations with global institutions, including the United Nations and World Bank.
Professor Dr Adnan Sarwar Khan, former chairman of the International Relations Department at the University of Peshawar, highlighted the treaty’s historical and legal importance, reiterating that it emerged from the urgent need to manage water disputes following Indo-Pak partition.
“The World Bank-mediated negotiations culminated in a landmark agreement that continues to ensure water security for millions of people and is still intact,” he said.
Recalling past disputes, Dr Sarwar said that India halted river flows to Pakistan on March 31, 1948, prompting protests and international intervention. He said subsequent issues, including those related to the Salal Dam, were resolved through the treaty’s mechanisms.
He expressed strong concern that new dam projects in Indian-occupied Kashmir, particularly on western rivers, could give India strategic leverage during conflict or drought, threatening Pakistan’s water and agricultural security.
Experts unanimously agreed that the Indus Waters Treaty remains a rare success story of regional cooperation and should not be politicised. They warned that unilateral suspension could have far-reaching dangerous consequences beyond South Asia and international powers including World Bank should come forward by pressing India to refrain from such illegal move.
Dr Sarwar stressed that the IWT remains the most viable framework for equitable water distribution between Pakistan and India, provided India honour its commitments. The experts urged the international community, particularly the United Nations and World Bank, to play a proactive role in ensuring adherence to international law and promoting durable peace, stability and prosperity of billions of people.
