Islamabad:
The Minister of Water Resources, Moeen Wattoo, criticized India for trying to “flee” from the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in total contempt for the permanent decision of the Arbitration Court (ACP) earlier this week.
The Minister reacted to the Declaration of the Ministry of External Affairs of India, claiming that the International Arbitration Court has no legal authority for declarations on the Industry Water Treaty between India and Pakistan, because New Delhi has never recognized the legitimacy of the Court.
A decision of the Court of Arbitration supported Pakistan last week by saying that India must adhere to the Industry Water Treaty in the design of new hydroelectric power plants on rivers that flow west to Pakistan.
Signed in 1960, the IWT awarded three infinity rivers to the west in Pakistan and three rivers with east of India. In 2023, Pakistan approached the permanent court of arbitration (ACP) in The Hague on the design of Indian hydroelectric projects on the rivers allocated to Pakistan.
In a decision on Monday, the APC confirmed its jurisdiction and declared that ITP “does not allow India to generate hydroelectric energy on Western rivers depending on what could be the ideal approach or best practices for engineering”.
The court added that India must adhere to “strictly” to the specifications of the treaty and “allow the waters of the Western rivers to” circulate “for” the without restriction of Pakistan. Pakistan prosecutor Mansoor Usman said that the PCA had accepted Pakistan’s position.
However, the spokesman for the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, Randir Jaiswal, told journalists that India “never accepted the legality, legitimacy or jurisdiction” of the court, mentioning his declarations “without competence” and devoid of legal status.
He said India has kept his decision to keep the TIB in suspense. Wattoo exceeded Delhi’s complaint. The minister told a private news channel that India’s position was baseless and wrong.
“Under any article in the agreement, India or Pakistan cannot terminate this agreement,” he said, adding that the ACP had already rejected similar objections from India. “The letter from India asking for the modification of the treaty had no legal coverage.”
India suspended the IWT in April following an attack in the pahalgam of the occupied cashmere who killed 26 tourists – an incident he blamed in Islamabad without proof. Pakistan warned that any attempt to stop its share of water would be an “act of war”.
The additional price of the PCA in June said that India could not hold the attempt. India again said that it had not recognized the authority of the court.
Responding to the position of the MEA spokesperson, the Minister of Water said to a digital media website: “India wishes to flee this agreement (IWT). Under any article in the agreement, India or Pakistan cannot terminate this Agreement.”
He said that India’s claim was “baseless and erroneous”, adding that Pakistan had rejected him.
“The court already said that he had the power to decide. India had already made this complaint, which the court had rejected.”
He said that a letter from India earlier in the year to request a change in the treaty had no legal coverage and that the country could not make a decision unilaterally concerning the TFI.
