Islamabad:
Experts have described India’s decision to suspend the Industry Water Treaty as a political blow and a dye designed to appease the Indian public, stressing that Delhi cannot unilaterally revoke or suspend the agreement.
“India or Pakistan cannot suspend or revoke the Water Treaty of Industrially, and any change in the Treaty would require mutual consent,” said former Pakistani commissioner for Indus waters (PCIW) Jamaat Ali Shah at The Express PK Press Club.
He said that the Industry Water Treaty is a permanent agreement and that India should therefore take the confidence of Pakistan to suspend or revoke it.
Describing the Indian announcement as nothing more than political theater, Shah said that this decision was a red herring aimed at deceiving the Indian public. He stressed that Pakistan should also issue a political response to the declaration. He stressed that if India was unilaterally moved away, it would actually lose its rights over the rivers attributed to it under the treaty.
Answering a question, he said that the World Bank is not a guarantee of the Industry Water Treaty, but rather an international body that facilitates dispute resolution between the two countries. He can even help establish an international arbitration court in the event of a dispute between Pakistan and India.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Power Awais Leghari also reacted to the Indian announcement, claiming that the “hasty and reckless suspension of India Treaty of the Industry is equivalent to the War of Water, to a loose and illegal act”.
“Each drop (of water) is our right, and we will defend it with all our strengths at the legal, political and international levels.”
Experts have observed that any suspension of the Industry Water Treaty indicates aggression and extremism by India, stressing that the agreement cannot be suspended or revoked unilaterally.
They also warned that such a unilateral action would doubt the credibility of all international agreements.
Stressing that the treaty did not include any provision for a unilateral “suspension”, he noted that it was designed to be of an indefinite duration and was not linked to specific events or deadlines.
According to them, India and Pakistan are also required to respect the treaty.
By interrupting the water flows in the Pakistani rivers, India would violate not only international water law, but also the creation of a dangerous precedent.
International law generally maintains that a country upstream (like India) has no right to block water in a downstream country (like Pakistan), even in the absence of a formal treaty.
Experts have warned that if India establishes such a model of behavior, it could create a regional precedent with implications beyond South Asia.
China, for example, could cite this movement to justify the blocking of water flows in the Brahmaputra river. Thus, the action of India could prove to be self-infringement in the long term, because countries like China closely monitor the situation.
The Indus Water Treaty, created in 1960, clearly stipulates that any amendment must be brought with the mutual consent of the two parties. Having ratified the treaty, India would violate its commitments by suspending it unilaterally.
Such a decision would not only contravene the mechanisms established for the resolution of disputes – such as the Permanent Commission of the Indus, impartial experts or an arbitral tribunal – but also undermines the very spirit of the agreement.
