When Rivers Become Frontlines: Pakistan’s Fight for Indus Water Rights

When India’s Home Minister Amit Shah announced on June 21, 2025, that New Delhi would “never restore” the Indus Waters Treaty and intends to divert critical treaty rivers to Rajasthan, Pakistan faced an extraordinary legal and geopolitical confrontation. Declaring the action a suspension rather than termination, India explicitly violated the 1960 treaty, which contains no provision for unilateral abrogation a grave breach of the pact’s framework as well as customary international law under pacta sunt servanda. Islamabad has denounced the move as illegal and tantamount to an “act of war,” and is preparing robust legal countermeasures through the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanisms, the World Bank, and potentially the International Court of Justice.

The treaty, upheld through another round of India–Pakistan tensions following Armed Forces cross-border strikes, provides Pakistan with around 80% of its water for irrigation and hydropower. Its suspension significantly threatens Pakistan’s agrarian economy, which contributes roughly a quarter of GDP and employs nearly 40% of the workforce. Moreover, historical data-sharing over 5,000 pages between 2010 and 2020 has been disrupted. Without access to real-time hydrological forecasts, Pakistan’s agricultural planning and power generation infrastructure are now vulnerable to erratic flows and siltation, risking crop failure and energy shortfalls during monsoons.

Pakistan’s legal position is firm and multidimensional. The treaty clearly delineates a structured dispute-resolution path starting with Permanent Indus Commission talks, progressing to a Neutral Expert, and culminating in a Court of Arbitration if necessary. Pakistan has already initiated proceedings and categorically rejected India’s unilateral suspension, urging the expert to proceed as scheduled. Furthermore, invoking international jurisprudence such as Article 60 and 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Islamabad contends that India’s action constitutes a material breach and that treaty obligations remain binding absent a negotiated termination.

Here again, Pakistan is leveraging both international law and global norms. As a downstream riparian nation, it invokes the no-harm principle and equitable-use doctrine from the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention though not a signatory, Pakistan treats these principles as customary international law. Pakistan’s push for legal redress sends a strong signal: upstream riparian rights do not override treaty obligations or downstream survival.

While legal tools are activated, Pakistan is also mobilizing diplomatic and strategic efforts. Parliamentarians have declared that any blockage of Indus flows would be met with military and legal responses. Islamabad has closed trade routes and downgraded diplomatic ties, making clear that the treaty is a non-negotiable lifeline. Simultaneously, Pakistan is appealing for international mediation via the World Bank, UN forums, and allied nations with Chatham House suggesting urgent mediation to halt escalation.

Domestically, Islamabad is accelerating its water resilience projects. Expansion of dam capacity (e.g. Diamer-Bhasha), modernization of the Indus Basin Replacement Works, and canal system management are underway to mitigate dependency on treaty flows. The legal challenge is matched by infrastructure readiness, designed to buffer against sudden disruptions.

Pakistan’s response sets a benchmark for treaty defense worldwide. Through procedural recourse, international advocacy, and domestic preparation, the country demonstrates a layered strategy: preserving legal rights, protecting water security, and deterring resource weaponization. The outcome may not only reinforce Pakistan’s stability, but also reassert the sanctity of water treaties under international law.

As this crisis unfolds, Islamabad’s steadfast stance may define the future of transboundary water cooperation in South Asia. Military options remain the last resort yet Pakistan’s determination to defend its treaty rights in law and practice underscores a critical truth: water cannot and will not be treated as a bargaining chip in geopolitics.

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad