Indus Waters Treaty: The Road Ahead for India and Pakistan

Indus Waters Treaty Latest News

• The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has passed two more orders against India in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) dispute — ruling that India’s decision to hold the Treaty in “abeyance” is impermissible, and directing India to halt construction at the Ratle Hydroelectric Project. 
• India rejected the Court’s legitimacy entirely, setting the stage for a prolonged, unresolved standoff.

The Latest Rulings

• The PCA ruled India’s decision to put the Treaty in abeyance was not permissible under the Treaty or international law — meaning the Treaty remains fully in force.
• It directed India to halt construction at the Ratle Hydroelectric Project until the technical dispute is resolved.
• This is the fourth award from the Court, all favouring Pakistan.
• The Court, constituted in September 2022, has previously declared itself competent to adjudicate and held its decisions “final and binding“.
• With this order, the Court has likely completed its work, having addressed all issues raised by Pakistan.

‹ ›

Why India Rejects the Court

• India calls the Court illegally-constituted, alleging it was set up by the World Bank in breach of Treaty terms.
• A neutral expert had already been appointed to adjudicate the same issue; the Treaty does not permit parallel resolution processes.
• India refused to appoint its two arbitrators; the Court nonetheless proceeded with two arbitrators appointed by Pakistan and three “umpires” nominated by Treaty-specified institutions.
• India maintains its decision to hold the IWT in abeyance remains in force, rejecting the Court’s award outright.

Why the Court’s Orders Carry No Real Force

• The PCA has no enforcement mechanism — its orders cannot compel material change given India’s firm rejection.
• For Pakistan, however, the orders remain valuable diplomatic ammunition to raise the issue at international forums and build a domestic narrative.

Pakistan’s Limited Options Going Forward

• Best case for Pakistan: Get the UN Security Council to pass a resolution against India, framing the dispute as a security issue (Pakistan is a non-permanent UNSC member for four more months).
• Alternative: Persuade the Security Council or UN General Assembly to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
• Both scenarios are far-fetched — India’s greater diplomatic clout at the UN makes such moves unlikely to succeed.
• Pakistan’s fallback option: sustained narrative-building portraying India as a treaty-violator.

India’s Strategic Response

• Primary focus: expeditious completion of projects on the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to fully utilise its Treaty-permitted rights.
  • Pursuing eight infrastructure projects worth ₹50,000 crore in Jammu and Kashmir.
  • One project — diverting Chenab waters to the Beas — exceeds Treaty provisions, which prohibit inter-basin transfer.
• India disengaged from the neutral expert process last year (set up at its own request) to avoid appearing to still operate under the Treaty.
• It continues sharing hydrological data with Pakistan, but only via the High Commission in Islamabad — not through the Permanent Indus Commission.
• India has linked the Treaty’s abeyance to Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism.
• It has proposed renegotiating the Treaty on a strictly bilateral basis, without third-party involvement (e.g., World Bank) — a condition Pakistan is unlikely to accept.

Sharing Water Without a Treaty

• The deadlock appears unresolvable in the near term; rivers will likely continue flowing without a formal agreement.
• This is not unprecedented — India shares rivers with China, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar, mostly without formal water-sharing treaties.
• Abeyance ≠ stopping water flow: India cannot physically halt flows even if it wished to; Pakistan continues receiving water as before, and will continue to do so even after India completes its western river projects.
• Pakistan’s water stress stems primarily from inefficient water management, not from Indian action.
• The uncertainty may actually push Pakistan toward better water management practices and storage infrastructure.

Conclusion

• The Indus Waters Treaty dispute has reached a practical stalemate: the Court of Arbitration’s unenforceable rulings favour Pakistan on paper, but India’s firm rejection and infrastructural push on the western rivers signal that it treats the Treaty as effectively defunct. 
• With renegotiation unlikely and international escalation improbable, transboundary water-sharing may continue informally, as it does with India’s other neighbours.

Source: IE