Introduction

In recent times, there has been a significant increase in efforts from Pakistan’s side asserting that the Indus Water Treaty (hereinafter referred to as the IWT Treaty) has wrongfully been put in abeyance by India. On 30th June, from Pakistan’s side, Mr Ishaq Dhar, who is currently the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, posted on X (Twitter) that the Indus Water Treaty is not merely a water-sharing agreement, but a vital instrument of regional stability and cooperation. Further, there has been an increase in commentary from some of the international outlets, such as AP News, which have already almost towed Pakistan’s line by stating that ‘Pakistan warns India against water weaponisation at Indus Water Treaty Seminar.’ This piece aims to counter the ill-asserted facts from Pakistan one by one, beginning from the history of the Indus Water Treaty to showing how, contrary to certain views, it is Pakistan which has consistently been violating the Treaty.

Situating the Indus Water Treaty (from past to present)

In 1950, both countries were already dealing with the effects of partition. This also included issues related to water sharing, since there wasn’t a complete demarcation of water rights on either side, particularly in the Punjab area. However, few Indian policymakers and those serving in foreign policy would have known that a pattern was emerging from the Pakistani side. Pakistan had already rescinded from the Inter Dominion Agreement in 1950, which laid down the terms and conditions under which West Punjab and East Punjab would negotiate the water agreement. Even during the signing of the Indus Water Treaty, Pakistan felt that the agreement was unfavourable to her, despite getting a whopping share of 80 per cent. Against this backdrop, it is imperative to introduce certain legal provisions of the IWT. Article 3 of the Indus Water Treaty provides that all of the Eastern rivers shall be available for unrestricted use of India. Further, the above article imposes an obligation on Pakistan not to interfere with the water of Sutlej Main and the Ravi Main, where these rivers have not yet crossed into Pakistan.

Article 4 of IWT provides that all of the Western Rivers will be allowed unrestricted flow to Pakistan without any impediment from India’s side. It must also be remembered that as highlighted frequently in various media outlets, while Pakistan receives 80% of the water from the Indus River system, India, on the other hand, receives only 20% of the water. Another important aspect is Article 9 of IWT, which deals with settlements and differences, and in case of any question regarding interpretation or application of the treaty, such a situation will be handled by the Commission.

On the question of abeyance

Some of the authors have argued that India’s position is not legally correct since it has put the Indus Water Treaty, despite there being no provision. First of all, such a situation where a treaty does not provide for withdrawal is not occurring for the first time. In 1955, Iraq successfully withdrew from a treaty due to a revolutionary change which occurred, despite the absence of an explicit clause. Since Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which deals with the fundamental breach of circumstances, is violated, therefore, it can strongly be argued that the Pahalgam terrorist attack vitiated the essence of the treaty. A much stronger claim can also be found in Article 64 of the VCLT, which states that any treaty which conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law can be declared to be void and can be terminated. In international law’s hierarchy, jus cogens always supersedes customary international law and treaties. In India’s case, the selective targeting of Hindu tourists can well be categorised as an act of genocide, which is a jus cogens norm, and thus gives India the right to even fully withdraw from the treaty since it becomes void. Importantly, for the first time, in 2006, genocide was clearly recognised as a jus cogens norm.

Further, the argument that India was obliged to inform Pakistan under Article 52 of the ARSIWA(which deals with conditions relating to resort to countermeasures) does not hold standing in the realm of international law. This is largely due to two reasons: firstly, it is largely unclear as to how countermeasures apply in the case of responding to instances of mass terrorism ( unlike the cited examples like Gabčíkovo, Mexico—Tax Measure and so forth), like the genocide of tourists; and secondly, even Article 52(2) provides that countermeasures can be taken in necessity without informing the other state Due to a grave situation which had occurred after Pahalgam terrorist attack and subsequent carrying of Operation Sindoor, India couldn’t have informed to Pakistan about the countermeasures taken.

Analysing the duties of Upper Riparian States

A possible line of argument from Pakistan can also be that India is violating the principles of environmental law by putting the IWT in abeyance. One of the most popularly cited cases in defence of prevention of harm is that of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros judgement. In this judgement, there were two opposition parties, the upper riparian state, being Slovakia, and the other lower riparian state being Hungary. It was held by the Court that the decision to abandon the construction on the site of Nagymaros was illegal. Eventually, the Court also found that measures taken by Slovakia to divert the waters of the Danube Canal were illegal. However, it is to be noted that the judgement only asked parties to consider the environmental impact of the Gabčíkovo Power Plant and did not elaborate significantly on what measures should have been taken by the parties.

Apart from the judgement, there are two international legal documents which need to be discussed; the first is the ILC draft articles on Non-Navigational uses of international watercourses, and the other is the Helsinki Rules. Despite many references drawn to the Helsinki Rules by various authors, the fact remains that it was not endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. However, the principle of equitable utilisation has largely been drawn from the Helsinki Rules, along with the ILC Draft Articles, which provide for allocation of water among states. The ILC draft Article explains that the principle of equitable utilisation refers to the use and benefits of international watercourses, or watercourses in question that are operational. Another important principle to be discussed is the principle of significant harm, as discussed in Article 7 of the ILC draft articles. Article 7 clearly states that watercourse states shall be required to ensure that there is no significant harm. This indicates that the ILC was well aware of the fact that some level of harm can be caused, although it cannot be unreasonable to the extent that it causes difficulty which is inherently inequitable and unreasonable. In the prevailing situation, it can neither be said that India’s decision to put the treaty in abeyance is unlawful or causes significant harm, since the flow of the water has not been stopped.

Presently, there is no significant harm caused to the people on the other side of the border due to abeyance of the treaty. Further, has Pakistan presented any conclusive evidence regarding flooding which has caused massive destruction, or a famine due to lack of release of water? Overall, the Pakistani argument sounds heavily reliant on mere assertions rather than evidence-based. Thus, it can be conclusively established that India has not violated any customary international law principle.

Conclusion

On the concluding note, it can fairly be stated that India’s abeyance of the treaty is lawfully justified, and there is violation of international law. However, Pakistan’s conduct of sponsoring terrorism for more than 50 years has repeatedly violated various tenets of international law, although which remains another matter of discussion, not intended for this piece.

(This post has been authored by Siddharth Chaturvedi who is currently working as an Academic Fellow at National Law University. Previously, he has contributed to many forums like Deccan Herald, The Leaflet, The Global Order and reputed journals like Oxford’s International Data Privacy Law Journal, and Economic & Political Weekly.)

CITE AS: Siddharth Chaturvedi, ‘Why India’s Abeyance of the Indus Waters Treaty Finds Support in International Law’ (The Contemporary Law Forum, 29 September 2026) <https://tclf.in/2026/09/29/why-indias-abeyance-of-the-indus-waters-treaty-finds-support-in-international-law/> date of access.