India’s decision to hold the six-decade-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance could have serious consequences for regional stability and set a troubling precedent for water-sharing arrangements worldwide, experts warned at a seminar Monday.
The seminar, titled “A Treaty in Turbulence: Indus Waters Treaty, Hydro-Diplomacy and Regional Peace,” was organised by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI).
Federal Minister for Water Resources Mian Mueen Wattoo, in his keynote address, described the Indus as “the pulse of Pakistan,” saying it sustains homes, waters fields, and carries the hopes of the country’s children. He said Pakistan does not object to India’s legal and peaceful use of shared waters but insists on compliance with the treaty and the resumption of data-sharing, which he called an obligation under the agreement. “Restraint should not be mistaken for weakness,” he said, adding that Pakistan would simultaneously work to improve irrigation efficiency, strengthen climate resilience, and expand its water-storage capacity. Wattoo said water “must not become a weapon” and urged New Delhi to reverse its decision, restore the treaty, and allow the Permanent Indus Commission to resume meetings and data exchange. “Let the Indus remain a river of life, not a river of conflict,” he said.
Wattoo said Pakistan would continue pursuing every available legal and diplomatic avenue, including proceedings before the Court of Arbitration, noting that delegations led by then-Foreign Minister and PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as well as Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, had already raised the issue at multiple international forums. He expressed confidence that international pressure would eventually compel India to reverse course, stressing that the matter concerned the lives and livelihoods of 250 million people.
SDPI Senior Water Adviser Naseer Memon said India’s decision was a matter of serious concern rooted in a deeply political dispute, though he noted certain natural safeguards remain in place. Roughly 80 percent of the Indus River’s flow originates outside India’s control, he said, while several tributaries in Ladakh remain frozen for significant periods each year, making large-scale manipulation of water flows economically and technically difficult given the river system’s scale and terrain.
Memon also argued that constructing large dams in the region’s deep gorges would face serious geographical constraints, potentially submerging areas including Baramulla and the Uri Valley. He said the Jhelum has limited potential for major dams, while the Chenab’s steep gorges and turbulent downstream flow make large earthen structures difficult to build. Describing the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region as geologically young and seismically fragile, he cautioned against reactive dam-building and urged policymakers to pursue calibrated, nature-based interventions instead.
Pakistan’s Indus Waters Commissioner and Additional Secretary at the Ministry of Water Resources, Syed Muhammad Mehar Ali Shah, gave a detailed technical briefing identifying the canal command areas most vulnerable to disruptions, particularly those fed by canals originating from the Chenab and Jhelum, along with the Ravi Link Canal system supplying water as far as Depalpur.
Shah said India currently has the capacity to manipulate water flows for about two to four days during the monsoon season and eight to ten days in winter, a level he described as manageable for Pakistan at present. However, he warned that Indian projects under construction, including additional storage upstream of Baglihar and Salal and the proposed 1.2-million-acre-foot Chenab-Ravi link, could extend that disruption window to between 20 and 30 days, developments he said would represent a clear violation of Article III of the treaty.
Shah noted that Pakistan ceded the entire eastern river system to India under the 1960 treaty and now depends primarily on the western rivers, adding that groundwater offers no independent buffer since it is largely recharged through seepage from the canal system. He outlined Pakistan’s response to the crisis, including its condemnation of India’s decision, letters to the UN Security Council and General Assembly, diplomatic outreach to major capitals, and engagement at international forums in Mexico, Washington, Brussels, Doha, Astana, and Abu Dhabi. He also referenced a December 16, 2025 report by UN Special Rapporteurs, which he said described India’s unilateral suspension of the treaty as unlawful and warned it could trigger a humanitarian crisis.
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, founder and president of the Research Society of International Law (RSIL), said India’s action amounted to a breach of international law. “There is little precedent for a state threatening to weaponise water in this manner,” he said. Drawing a parallel with India’s August 2019 revocation of the special status of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, Soofi described both actions as unilateral departures from international commitments and UN Security Council resolutions. He also raised the question of whether China, as an upper riparian in parts of the wider Indus basin, should be regarded as a stakeholder in the dispute. Soofi noted that Pakistan has already demonstrated compliance with international counter-terrorism frameworks, including through the Financial Action Task Force and the UN Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee established under Resolution 1373, and rejected Indian claims linking the treaty’s suspension to allegations of cross-border terrorism.
Opening the session, SDPI Deputy Executive Director (Research) Dr Sajid Amin Javed said water underpins the economy, public health, and future of South Asia, and that the current hydro-diplomatic standoff would shape both economic and political diplomacy in the region. He warned that allowing a state to unilaterally bypass a long-standing international treaty could set a dangerous precedent for other countries and undermine the rules-based management of shared natural resources.
