ISLAMABAD – 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 on 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 sustained homes, watered fields and carried the hopes of the country’s children.
He said Pakistan did not object to India’s legal and peaceful use of shared waters but insisted on compliance with the treaty and the resumption of data-sharing, which he said was 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. The minister 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 its meetings and exchange data.
“Let the Indus remain a river of life, not a river of conflict,” he said.
Wattoo said Pakistan would continue to pursue every available legal and diplomatic avenue, including proceedings before the Court of Arbitration.
He noted that delegations led by the then foreign minister and PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as well as Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, had already raised the issue at several international forums.
Expressing confidence that international pressure would eventually compel India to reverse its decision, he said the matter concerned the lives and livelihoods of 250 million people.
SDPI Senior Water Adviser Naseer Memon said India’s decision to hold the IWT in abeyance was a matter of serious concern rooted in a deeply political dispute.
However, he said certain natural safeguards remained in place. He noted that roughly 80 per cent of the Indus River’s flow originated outside India’s control, while several tributaries in Ladakh remained frozen for significant periods.
He said the scale of the river system and the difficult terrain made large-scale manipulation of water flows economically and technically challenging.
Memon further argued that the construction of large dams in the region’s deep gorges would face serious geographical constraints. He said such projects could potentially submerge areas including Baramulla and the Uri Valley.
He added that the Jhelum had limited potential for major dams, while the Chenab’s steep gorges and turbulent downstream flow made large earthen structures difficult.
Describing the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region as geologically young and seismically fragile, Memon cautioned against reactive dam-building and urged policymakers to pursue calibrated and nature-based interventions.
Pakistan’s Indus Waters Commissioner and Additional Secretary at the Ministry of Water Resources, Syed Muhammad Mehar Ali Shah, gave a detailed technical briefing on the canal command areas that he said were most vulnerable to disruptions in water flows.
He identified the command areas fed by canals originating from the Chenab and Jhelum, along with the Ravi Link Canal system supplying water as far as Depalpur, as particularly critical.
Shah said India currently had the capacity to manipulate water flows for about two to four days during the monsoon season and eight to 10 days in winter, which 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 the disruption period to between 20 and 30 days. He said such developments would represent a clear violation of Article III of the treaty.
Shah said Pakistan had ceded the entire eastern river system to India under the 1960 treaty and now depended primarily on the western rivers.
Groundwater, he said, offered no independent buffer as it was largely recharged through seepage from the canal system.
He outlined Pakistan’s response to the treaty 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 referred to a report by UN Special Rapporteurs dated December 16, 2025, which, according to him, described India’s unilateral suspension of the treaty as unlawful and warned that the move could trigger a humanitarian crisis.
Founder and President of the Research Society of International Law (RSIL) Ahmer Bilal Soofi 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 said Pakistan had 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.
He rejected Indian claims linking the suspension of the treaty to allegations of cross-border terrorism.
Earlier, opening the session, SDPI Deputy Executive Director (Research) Dr Sajid Amin Javed said water underpinned the economy, public health and future of South Asia.
He said the current hydro-diplomatic standoff would shape both economic and political diplomacy in the region.
Warning of wider consequences, he said 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.
