The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has ruled that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between India and Pakistan remains in full force and effect. The court has told India to “continue to comply with its obligations under the treaty”. The court has also found that India’s decision to “abstain” from the treaty was an attempt to “prevent or terminate” the treaty. The court said that there is no provision in the treaty for either party to “prevent, terminate” or “suspend” the operation of the treaty.
The court has also ordered India to temporarily halt some construction work on the Ratle Hydro-Electric Project in Jammu and Kashmir. However, India does not recognise the “Court of Arbitration”, which was formally set up in 2023 at the request of Pakistan. India has never participated in its proceedings and has repeatedly dismissed its decisions as invalid and void. So the question is what will India do now?
The Hague court’s decision and India’s sovereign response, what does it mean?
The Hague court’s decision may be a documentary and symbolic victory for Pakistan, but it will have no impact on strategic and practical levels. Diplomat Ruchi Ghanashyam said that Pakistan had repeatedly obstructed India’s projects, so India had no option but to suspend the agreement for some time. He said that India had repeatedly requested Pakistan to hold talks with Pakistan on the Indus Waters Treaty, but Islamabad ignored it.
India’s objection to the court’s jurisdiction:
Ambassador Bala Bhaskar Navabharat told Times Online that India has refused to abide by the legality of the Hague-based arbitration court since the beginning. India’s argument is that there is a three-tier system for dispute resolution under the 1960 treaty. While India had resorted to the impartial expert procedure, Pakistan was simultaneously at the doorstep of the Hague court, which was a clear violation of the treaty provisions.
International Law and Sovereignty:
It is a settled principle of international law that no international body can compel a sovereign state to accept a decision whose jurisdiction is itself in dispute. When India refused to participate in the court proceedings, the decision was completely unilateral.
Similarly, Subhra Kamal Dutt said that Pakistan has always violated bilateral agreements, so why would India show leniency on the Indus Waters Treaty? International law says that India can repudiate the treaty by taking into account the retrospective effect. Besides, India was not fully utilizing the share of water it got under the Indus Waters Treaty.
He said, “India has given 100 percent of the water of the western rivers to Pakistan. While India has also given most of the water of the eastern rivers to Pakistan. This has led to the loss of India’s rights. So now the government is taking steps to block its share of water. India is building dams for that. India is still building dams to block 20 percent of the water that has come to its share, so India is not violating any agreement.”
What strategy should India adopt now?
Ambassador Bala Bhaskar said that India has given a clear message to Pakistan that it will not accept any such court decision and that ‘blood and water cannot flow together’. He said that Pakistan is constantly using sponsored terrorism against India as its state policy and on the other hand is expecting ‘good faith and unfettered flow of water’ from India under the 1960 agreement. This double standard is now untenable. He said that the basis of this agreement was ‘relations based on friendship and trust’, which Pakistan has repeatedly broken, so the decision to stop this agreement is absolutely right.
He has to agree that whenever India now discusses the Indus Water Treaty in the future, it will add anti-terrorism conditions. Although Pakistan will be reluctant to come to the negotiating table with these conditions. But the issue is not limited to terrorism alone. He said that climate change has made the Indus Water Treaty quite outdated. Now there is a need to discuss it anew and add new conditions. The water quota can be changed in the light of climate change and population growth.
Pakistan’s legal move was reversed due to one of India’s stances!
On the other hand, Sukh Kamal Dutt said that the Shimla Agreement clearly states that the two countries will resolve the dispute through mutual talks and bilateral meetings. Both countries agreed to this and when Atal Bihari Vajpayee went to Lahore, both countries agreed to this, then how can the Indus Water Treaty be resolved through a third party? Apart from this, a peaceful environment is necessary to resolve the issue and the Lahore Treaty also says this, but Pakistan has violated both the Lahore Treaty and the Shimla Treaty. So on what basis is Pakistan appealing the Indus Water Treaty?
Bala Bhaskar said that the agreement with the new conditions will give India the freedom to use its entire share of water. Pakistan must try to raise questions at the international level about India’s ‘responsible upper-riparian’ tsunami.
