Bilawal for new int’l convention against ‘weaponisation of waterways’
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari called for a new international convention against the “weaponisation of waterways,” arguing that India’s decision to put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance was not merely a bilateral dispute but a challenge to international law, global peace, and the rights of downstream states.
Addressing the session of the international seminar on “The Indus Waters Treaty: A Key Instrument for Peace and Regional Stability”, at the Jinnah Convention Centre in Islamabad on Tuesday, the PPP Chairman urged the government to pursue its legal, diplomatic, humanitarian, climate and deterrence cases simultaneously, while warning that attempts to manipulate shared rivers should be treated as a form of coercion rather than a technical disagreement.
He proposed what he described as “a new international convention against the weaponisation of waterways”, saying international law should explicitly prohibit states from exploiting civilian dependence on shared rivers.
The convention, he said, should establish that no upstream state could hold downstream populations hostage, that waterways could not be used as instruments of coercion or blackmail, and that “water is not a weapon”, “thirst is not diplomacy”, and “famine is not statecraft”.
He argued that the principle should apply globally, citing waterways including the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, the Nile, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the Indus, arguing that waterways sustaining civilian populations and international stability “cannot be turned into weapons of coercion”.
Bilawal also urged the government to continue making its case internationally.
“We must take the climate case to every summit. We must take the diplomatic case to every capital,” he said, adding that Pakistan should also present “the deterrence case to every strategist who thinks South Asia can survive casual experiments with the Indus”.
Turning to domestic policy, Bilawal said Pakistan must strengthen water security regardless of India’s actions. Projects already approved before India’s unilateral move, including reservoirs, barrages, canals and flood protection systems, should continue, he said, because “Pakistan needs water security”.
He also argued that the dispute formed part of a wider campaign against Pakistan, alongside border tensions, proxy violence, propaganda, economic pressure and hybrid warfare. “A bullet is not the only weapon. A blockade is a weapon. A sanction can be a weapon. A lie can be a weapon. A proxy can be a weapon. A river can be made into a weapon.”
He urged the country to simultaneously pursue “the legal case, the diplomatic case, the humanitarian case, the climate case, and the deterrence case”, while calling for greater national unity. “The Indus belongs to the farmer of Sindh, the grower of Punjab, the worker of Karachi, the family of Balochistan, the mountains of Pakhtunkhwa, and the future of every Pakistani child.”
He said Pakistan should continue investing in reservoirs, dams, barrages, flood management systems and water conservation, but emphasised that such measures should not be interpreted as accepting India’s position.
“We preserve water because our future demands wisdom, not because we accept blackmail. We prepare for scarcity, but we do not legitimise strangulation.”
Bilawal compared the strategic significance of the Indus River to the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that regional peace depended on preserving both. “And no peace can be achieved between the United States and Iran with the Strait of Hormuz shut,” he said. “Similarly, how can any ceasefire between India and Pakistan hope to endure without the IWT being restored?”
“A strait may carry the oil of nations,” he added, “the Indus carries the life of nations.”
He described the Indus as central to Pakistan’s identity and survival, saying it was “not a river on a map” but the source of the country’s food security, agriculture and livelihoods. “It is our bread. It is our cotton. It is our wheat. It is our farmer at dawn. It is our mother drawing water. It is our children eating Roti. It is our worker in the mill,” he said, adding, “To cut off the Indus is not to pressure a government. It is to threaten a people.”
He argued that deterrence should begin long before water was actually diverted, saying Pakistan should not wait “until the last drop has vanished” before recognising a threat.
“Pakistan’s deterrence does not begin when the last drop has vanished,” he said. “Deterrence begins when the adversary first moves towards the strangulation of a nation.”
Bilawal maintained that Pakistan sought peace but rejected suggestions that restraint meant accepting pressure over its water rights. “We seek restraint, but not national suicide.”
He argued that attempts to control Pakistan’s water should be understood as strategic coercion rather than disputes over engineering or irrigation. “We are not discussing canals. We are discussing the deliberate manufacture of famine, migration, economic collapse, and national paralysis.”
He warned: “A weaponised river can destroy a country in slow motion”, arguing that the consequences of disrupting water supplies would extend far beyond agriculture.”
Calling for political consensus, Bilawal said the Indus transcended party politics and provincial interests. He contended that “the Indus belongs to Pakistan. It belongs to history,” urging “unity in parliament”, “clarity at the GHQ”, “resolve
in the Foreign Office, science in our universities”, and “discipline among our people”.
Concluding his address, Bilawal warned the international community against dismissing the issue as an administrative disagreement over water management, stating that the Indus was not only “an artery of Pakistan’s economy” but the “bloodstream of Pakistan itself. “The Indus is not negotiable. The Sindhu is not for surrender,” he added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026