Pakistan’s willingness to engage with these experts demonstrated its commitment to cooperation
ISLAMABAD:
Despite serious challenges to the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) arising from the politics and ideology of Modi’s Hindutva-led government, Pakistan has adopted a calm, cautious and international law-based approach.
Pakistan’s strategy emphasized patience, legal remedies and proactive diplomacy, which not only helped protect its rights as a lower riparian state but also strengthened its image as a responsible member of the international community.
The situation worsened and tensed when India unilaterally decided to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, in violation of international law, which raised serious concerns as the treaty does not allow either country to suspend it on their own.
In international law, agreements between countries must be respected – a principle known as Pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be respected). India’s move has created uncertainty and raised questions about whether international agreements can be so easily ignored.
Former Chairman of the Council of Water Resources Research (PCRWR) and renowned water expert Dr. Muhammad Aslam Tahir was of the view that Pakistan had always acted as a responsible state and India, under the influence of Modi’s Handutva ideology, had resorted to violating all international laws and norms.
He added that instead of reacting with emotion, Pakistan chose to follow a legal path by reaching out to the institutions already integrated into the conventional system, including the Court of Arbitration and neutral experts. “These are formal mechanisms intended to resolve disputes peacefully.
By using them, Pakistan has shown that it believes in resolving conflicts through law rather than confrontation,” he noted.
It is worth mentioning here that one of the most important developments occurred when the Court of Arbitration confirmed that the IWT was still valid, regardless of India’s position.
It was a visible victory for Pakistan. The decision made clear that no country can ignore a treaty on its own and that refusing to participate does not eliminate its legal responsibility.
This decision further strengthened Pakistan’s position and the importance of international agreements.
Dr. Muhammad Aslam said the neutral experts also supported the dispute resolution process, demonstrating that the treaty still has strong and functional mechanisms.
Pakistan’s willingness to engage with these experts demonstrated its commitment to cooperation, while India’s limited participation created a visible difference in the way the two countries handled the situation, he asserted.
Pakistan has also raised the issue at international forums, including the United Nations, where special rapporteurs (independent experts) have taken interest in this serious issue and asked about possible violations of the treaty.
This helped elevate the issue from a simple bilateral dispute to a broader global concern involving international law, human rights and equitable access to water.
Despite receiving formal questions from UN experts, India did not provide a detailed response even after the deadline. This silence has raised international concerns, demonstrating India’s lack of engagement in global accountability systems and weakening compliance with international rules. Such behavior could set a risky example if other countries also start ignoring the treaties.
Another water expert, Dr. Ahmad Ashraf, said that water is a critical resource, especially for Pakistan. As a downstream country, it relies heavily on the rivers governed by the treaty. Any disruption could affect agriculture, energy production and the daily lives of millions of people, he said.
He said Pakistan focused on protecting the treaty through legal means rather than escalating tensions. India tried to justify its actions by linking the treaty to the false flag Pahalgam incident. However, no solid evidence has been presented in international legal forums or by neutral bodies.
