THE Permanent Court of Arbitration’s supplemental award on Islamabad’s decade-old petition challenging the design specifications of two Indian hydropower projects on rivers allocated to Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty is a definitive affirmation of the supremacy of international law over unilateral state actions.
It places India in an increasingly untenable position — legally, diplomatically, and perhaps important, morally. The ruling removes whatever ambiguity India has been trying to exploit. By reaffirming that the IWT remains binding on both parties and that neither can unilaterally suspend it, the decision closes the door on India’s irrational position that it can arbitrarily hold the treaty “in abeyance”.
More significantly, the tribunal has constrained India’s ability to control the western rivers in ways that disadvantage Pakistan’s downstream entitlement by declaring that maximum pondage must be justified by actual operational necessity — such as site hydrology, hydraulic conditions and power system requirements.
The ruling vindicates Pakistan’s position that the IWT places limits on Indian hydropower infrastructure on its rivers. The award is also significant because it strengthens Pakistan’s review rights, and explicitly places the burden to provide sufficient information for treaty compliance assessment on India.
Besides being a technical and legal win, the ruling validates Pakistan’s argument about the existential stakes involved for it. Pakistan is among the world’s most water-stressed nations. Its agricultural economy, food security and rural livelihoods are closely tied to the Indus river system. When Pakistan raises concerns about run-of-the-river projects reducing downstream flows, it is indicating its own survival interests that the treaty was designed to protect.
India’s decision to suspend the IWT following the Pahalgam terrorist attack is a serious miscalculation and sets a troubling precedent. If India can suspend a binding international treaty, it might elicit similar moves by other riparian states — most notably, China — in treaties where India itself is the downstream party.
The award of a court of arbitration is final and binding on both parties under the treaty and established international arbitration law. India’s continued defiance and rejection of the tribunal does not hold water. Hence, New Delhi must now revise the pondage parameters of the Ratle and Kishenganga designs and ensure they are treaty-compliant. It should also restore the information-sharing and review mechanisms to allow Pakistan to independently assess compliance.
Moreover, it must reverse its decision to hold the IWT in abeyance and recommit formally to the treaty framework. No bilateral grievance can justify the suspension of a legal instrument governing the water rights of a people. India’s unilateral suspension of the treaty does not merely damage bilateral relations. It also undermines international law, sets a bad precedent for transboundary water-sharing agreements and puts in danger a system where nations share diminishing resources in a way that benefits all.
Published in Dawn, May 19th, 2026
