ISLAMABAD – July 1, 2025: Pakistan has formally taken its case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, accusing India of using water from the Western Rivers as a strategic weapon — a violation, Islamabad says, of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
In its detailed submission, Pakistan paints a troubling picture of India’s evolving water management policies. According to Pakistan, since April 23, 2025, New Delhi has adopted a deliberate posture of “abeyance” — essentially putting the treaty on hold while continuing to manipulate water flows through upstream infrastructure.
“This isn’t just about policy statements anymore,” one Pakistani official familiar with the matter told this publication. “India’s dam operations and sudden changes in water discharge patterns are now affecting millions downstream.”
Allegations of Weaponisation
At the core of Pakistan’s case is what it calls the “weaponisation” of water — a term used to describe three specific actions by India:
- Deliberate withholding of water through filling up reservoirs, disrupting irrigation in Pakistan.
- Sudden release of excessive water volumes, which can cause flooding and damage downstream.
- Releasing large volumes of sediment, which can destroy farmland, infrastructure, and aquatic ecosystems.
Pakistan claims that recent data — including hydrographs of the Chenab River — clearly shows unnatural flow variations in early May and again at the end of the month, extending into June. These spikes, Islamabad argues, correspond to the filling and flushing of the Baglihar Hydro-Electric Project (HEP) reservoir.
“It’s not speculation — the data speaks for itself,” said a Pakistani legal expert involved in the case. “The scale and timing of these flow changes can’t be explained away as natural variation.”
India’s Silence and the Tribunal’s Stance
Pakistan also noted that a formal letter seeking clarification was sent by Pakistan’s Commissioner for Indus Waters to his Indian counterpart on May 27, but no reply was received.
The Court of Arbitration, chaired by American jurist Professor Sean D. Murphy, recently ruled that it does have the jurisdiction to hear Pakistan’s complaint — despite India’s assertion that it had suspended its participation under the treaty framework.
The ruling explicitly states:
“India’s position that it is holding the Treaty in ‘abeyance’, however that position may be characterised as a matter of international law, does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence.”
In its submission, Pakistan warned that India’s actions under the guise of abeyance are “no longer hypothetical threats,” citing official rhetoric and media commentary in India that appear to support aggressive water policies as part of national strategy.
Pakistan alleges that India’s disregard for operational limits outlined in the treaty’s Annexure D has already resulted in significant and intentional disruptions in water supply.
What’s at Stake
Legal observers say this case — which also touches on the controversial Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects — could have far-reaching implications for water-sharing regimes across the region. A final award by the tribunal is expected later this summer.
For now, Islamabad remains firm in its stance that India is undermining a historic agreement that has, despite decades of political tension, largely ensured peace over shared water resources.
“This isn’t just a legal battle — it’s a fight to protect the lifeline of Pakistan’s agriculture, economy, and environment,” said one senior official. “Weaponising water is a red line, and we’ve drawn it clearly before the world.”
