66 Years of Stability Undone by Unilateral Abeyance
By Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
Water is the essence of life, and it is through its presence that the world achieves prosperity and progress. Nature has provided numerous sources of water; while vast reserves exist underground, rivers—whose courses were charted by nature itself—remain the most vital source. Securing river water was a challenge for Pakistan from the very beginning, as India frequently attempted to obstruct the flow of these natural waterways. To resolve this issue, the Indus Waters Treaty was signed between Pakistan and India on September 19, 1960. Although sixty-six years have passed since then, India has consistently created obstacles in the treaty’s implementation. For Pakistan, water and its rivers serve as a lifeline.
India’s unilateral decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance challenges the principles of cooperation, predictability, and responsibility essential to transboundary river governance. Rivers are life, livelihoods, and food security; undermining established mechanisms governing shared rivers places millions of downstream people at greater risk and weakens the foundations of sustainable development. For Pakistan, the Indus river system is the backbone of agriculture, irrigation, hydropower, ecosystems, and rural livelihoods; uncertainty surrounding treaty-based water management therefore carries consequences far beyond diplomacy. In a climate-stressed Indus Basin, unilateral disruption of established water governance mechanisms risks compounding natural hydrological variability with man-made uncertainty, increasing vulnerabilities to both floods and water scarcity.
The rights of lower riparian cannot be subordinated to unilateral political calculations. Sustainable transboundary water management requires that upstream development and water management remain consistent with established legal obligations and downstream interests. The Indus Waters Treaty survived decades of conflict because water security was recognised as a shared strategic responsibility. Its unilateral disruption threatens to erode one of the region’s most important institutional safeguards against water-related instability. Climate change makes cooperation more necessary. As glacier melt, extreme precipitation, droughts, and changing river regimes increase hydrological uncertainty, South Asia requires stronger mechanisms for data-sharing, flood coordination, drought preparedness, and sustainable basin management.
Water must remain a bridge between communities, not a weapon of geopolitical pressure. India’s unilateral abeyance of the IWT risks converting a shared ecological resource into an instrument of strategic coercion, with consequences extending well beyond bilateral relations. When rivers are destabilised, societies are destabilised. Weakening the institutional safeguards around the Indus risks intensifying pressures on agriculture, food systems, livelihoods, energy security, ecosystems, and regional stability.
For sixty-six years, the Indus Waters Treaty survived wars, military confrontations, and prolonged political hostility; India’s unilateral abeyance of the treaty now threatens the very principle that enabled this historic agreement to endure. A treaty that endured six decades of conflict should not be discarded through unilateral political action; India’s attempt to place the IWT in abeyance undermines the sanctity of international agreements. India’s unilateral abeyance of the IWT raises fundamental questions about its commitment to pacta sunt servanda, the basic principle that treaties must be respected and performed in good faith. After sixty-six years of treaty continuity, India’s attempt to suspend the IWT establishes a dangerous precedent that political disagreements can be used to undermine legally binding transboundary water arrangements. The strength of international law lies not in its observance during periods of peace, but in its preservation during periods of crisis. India’s conduct puts that principle under serious strain.
The continued operation of the Court of Arbitration and Neutral Expert processes demonstrates that unilateral political disengagement cannot simply extinguish established treaty-based mechanisms. India’s refusal to engage constructively with established dispute-resolution mechanisms undermines the institutional architecture that allowed the IWT to survive six decades of bilateral confrontation. The IWT’s sixty-six-year history proves that shared rivers can remain governed by law even when political relations collapse; India’s unilateral abeyance risks reversing that historic achievement. Water treaties are instruments of stability, not tools of political retaliation. India’s attempt to weaponise the IWT threatens the credibility of transboundary water governance beyond South Asia. If unilateral suspension of water treaties becomes acceptable, every downstream state dependent on a shared river could face increased uncertainty whenever relations with an upstream state deteriorate.
The Hague Award is a significant affirmation of Pakistan’s longstanding position that the Indus Waters Treaty cannot be placed in unilateral “abeyance.” By reaffirming that the Treaty remains fully in force, the ruling strengthens Pakistan’s legal credibility and demonstrates that its reliance on international law and established dispute-resolution mechanisms was justified. The PCA’s unanimous determination strikes at the legal foundation of India’s “abeyance” policy. The Treaty itself contains no provision permitting unilateral suspension, termination or “abeyance”; it remains in force. India cannot convert a political declaration into a legal instrument. The ruling reinforces the fundamental principle of pacta sunt servanda.
India declined to participate in this phase despite being invited to make written submissions. Absence from the courtroom does not erase treaty obligations, nor does it create a legal veto over international adjudication. Refusal to participate cannot become a model for powerful states seeking to evade international dispute resolution mechanisms. The Award reaffirmed that India’s rights over hydro-electric development on the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, the Western Rivers, are treaty-defined rights, not unlimited sovereign discretion. India may construct permitted run-of-river hydro-electric projects, but their design and operation remain subject to the Treaty and its dispute-settlement framework.
The Award was accompanied by a unanimous Order imposing interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant. The Court prohibited India from concreting specified portions of the dam wall and power-intake structure above prescribed levels pending the Neutral Expert’s decision, while also requiring reporting on construction-schedule changes. The Court has demonstrated that treaty compliance has practical consequences for ongoing infrastructure activity. The stakes extend far beyond Pakistan and India. If an upstream state could unilaterally suspend a water-sharing treaty whenever political relations deteriorate, the security of downstream states across transboundary river systems would become vulnerable to political coercion. The PCA’s ruling therefore protects not merely one treaty, but a broader principle: international agreements cannot be subordinated to unilateral political convenience.
The Award reinforces the principle that binding water treaties cannot be displaced through unilateral political declarations, strengthening the rules-based framework that protects downstream states worldwide. Pakistan’s position has therefore received authoritative international legal validation: disputes over shared water resources must be governed by law, not coercion or unilateralism. For Pakistan, the Indus system is not merely a river network but the foundation of its agricultural economy, rural livelihoods and food security. The Hague ruling provides critical legal reassurance that the treaty framework governing these vital waters remains intact, while underscoring the importance of predictable, transparent and rules-based water flows for millions whose lives and livelihoods depend on the Indus Basin.
