THE reality of the Indus Waters Treaty isn’t that it survived three wars, but that it survived decades of misleading perceptions. While geography protects Pakistan’s western rivers, announcements of unviable dams and tunnels, paired with the ‘no water will flow’ rhetoric, manufacture panic in Pakistan and political mileage in India. The IWT endures not because of its character — which is blind to environmental and human rights — but despite manufactured fear. Since April 2025, there has been an announcement-withdrawal cycle. India has announced ambitious water projects, such as the ‘Chenab-Beas tunnel’ on the western rivers. With messaging about ‘stopping Pakistan’s waters’, the announcements lead to immediate coverage and domestic political capital.
The Indus river in Ladakh flows at high altitude through narrow valleys with an extreme sediment load, limiting large-scale storage. A Chenab-Beas tunnel would require tunnelling, which entails massive costs for a small quantity of water. Both ideas have reportedly been shelved quietly. The technical information gap fuels insecurity among Pakistanis while creating a perception of strength in India.
Tensions rose after an Indian minister said, “not a single drop of water will flow to Pakistan”. This official stance extends beyond the IWT’s legal text and conflicts with international customary law, norms and human rights.
The UN recognises water as a human right. Pakistan’s Punjab and Sindh depend on Indus irrigation for 90 per cent of their crops and the livelihoods of 220 million people. Sudden cuts threaten food security, rural incomes and drinking water. International law treats the intentional deprivation of civilian access to water as a human rights violation.
A legal encirclement strategy can counter Indian aggression.
Where climate and the environment are concerned, lower flows choke silt supply and increase salinity in the Indus delta, besides degrading the ecological system.
In the matter of customary international law, the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention mandates “equitable and reasonable use” and “no significant harm” to co-riparians. Threats to block flows contradict both principles now considered customary law.
Meanwhile, international humanitarian law cites Additional Protocol I, Article 54, which bans “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” and attacks on objects vital to survival, including drinking water installations. If water is weaponised to target civilians, it raises war crimes concerns under IHL. This shifts the dispute from treaty compliance to customary law and humanitarian/ security risks, which Pakistan should address through a detailed legal encirclement strategy.
The immediate response to India’s water aggression should be based on legal encirclement across four forums to deter unilateralism and protect civilians. It requires invoking the IWT’s Article IX to establish a Court of Arbitration under Annexure G and to argue that designs that prevent flows violate Article III (2). Remedies sought should include a declaration of breach, an order to maintain the status quo, and compensation.
An Article 15 communication should be filed with the International Criminal Court prosecutor. The Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) criminalises “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to survival, including water”. Pakistan should assert that the denial of water will directly threaten survival. A case must also be filed with the International Court of Justice based on the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention, international customary law/ precedents and the Berlin Rules, seeking pro-
visional measures under Article 41 of the ICJ statute to order both states to avoid diversion du-ring adjudication, thus framing the issue as general international law, not just a bilateral matter.
Water is linked to the right to life, food and health under ICCPR Article 6 and ICESCR Article 11. This should be leveraged by showing the UN Human Rights Council how reduced flows displace rural communities and increase disease risk. The UNHRC’s Special Procedures and Universal Periodic Review can mandate fact-finding and recommendations, focusing attention on the humanitarian impact. Briefly, this legal encirclement should aim for treaty compliance at the Court of Arbitration, individual accountability at the ICC, state responsibility at the ICJ and human rights protection at the UNHRC.
The Indus shows how rivers link geography, law and politics. As climate change variability increases, experts argue that public literacy on hydrology and strict adherence to treaty procedures are the best defence against misinformation and escalation. Whether the future brings more announcements or cooperation may depend on whether perception politics or the law of shared rivers prevails.
The writer is an expert on hydrology and water resources.
Published in Dawn, June 24th, 2026
