BR100 Decreased By (-1.2%)
BR30 Decreased By (-1.31%)
KSE100 Decreased By (-0.95%)
KSE30 Decreased By (-0.95%)
AGHA 6.32 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.78%)
BECO 4.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-2.29%)
BML 62.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-0.3%)
BOP 31.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-1.23%)
CNERGY 11.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-1.53%)
CSIL 5.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-6.08%)
FCCL 61.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.55 (-0.89%)
FFL 15.02 Increased By ▲ 0.29 (1.97%)
FNEL 1.23 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (2.5%)
KEL 6.26 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.62%)
KOSM 5.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-2.11%)
LOTCHEM 24.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.37 (-1.48%)
MLCF 104.08 Decreased By ▼ -1.19 (-1.13%)
NBP 175.28 Decreased By ▼ -5.29 (-2.93%)
NCPL 52.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-1.05%)
NPL 54.12 Decreased By ▼ -0.67 (-1.22%)
OGDC 313.39 Decreased By ▼ -2.70 (-0.85%)
PACE 9.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-2.02%)
PAEL 35.80 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (1.02%)
PIBTL 13.47 Decreased By ▼ -0.32 (-2.32%)
PPL 221.81 Decreased By ▼ -3.54 (-1.57%)
PRL 79.08 Decreased By ▼ -1.31 (-1.63%)
PTC 46.85 Decreased By ▼ -1.17 (-2.44%)
SSGC 23.87 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-2.21%)
TBL 9.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.75%)
TELE 7.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-2.64%)
TPL 25.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-0.91%)
TPLP 12.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-4.5%)
TREET 26.25 Increased By ▲ 1.21 (4.83%)
TRG 53.44 Decreased By ▼ -1.39 (-2.54%)

This is apropos two back-to-back letters to the Editor headlined above carried by the newspaper on Tuesday and yesterday. I would like to add further that in addition to being morally indefensible, India’s unilateral suspension of the Treaty would be unlawful. Article XII of the Treaty clearly states that it can only be altered or terminated through mutual agreement by the two states, through a duly ratified treaty. Under international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, unilateral withdrawal from a treaty is permitted only in cases of a material breach of the treaty’s very obligations. A terrorist incident, however tragic, does not relate to the water-sharing arrangements specified in the Treaty and thus does not qualify as a material breach.

Pakistan, faced with such a threat, has several avenues to respond effectively. It can invoke the dispute resolution mechanism under Article IX, escalating the matter from the Permanent Indus Commission to a Neutral Expert or a Court of Arbitration if necessary. Pakistan can also approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that India’s actions constitute a violation of international law. Simultaneously, Pakistan can bring the matter before the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, highlighting how India’s threat endangers international peace and security. Diplomatically, Pakistan can mobilize international opinion by engaging the World Bank, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union, China, Turkey, Malaysia, and others to condemn India’s actions. It can also seek economic and trade measures against India if it persists with its threats.

The United Nations and international institutions have a duty to act in such situations. Persistent violation of international obligations, such as those under the Indus Waters Treaty, can trigger action under Article 6 of the UN Charter, which allows for expulsion of a member state. Furthermore, breaching humanitarian treaties constitutes an internationally wrongful act under the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, inviting international sanctions. The World Bank, as a guarantor of the Treaty, also has a responsibility to publicly reaffirm the Treaty’s validity and pressure India to comply with its obligations.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Qamar Bashir

The writer is a former Press Secretary to the President, An ex-Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France, a former MD, SRBC Macomb, Detroit, Michigan

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.