WHILE stopping another country’s water supply could be interpreted as a severe violation of international law, it must also be considered as quasi-genocide act as it causes multiple human sufferings and lethal effects, constituting a grave human rights violation.
Thus, any Indian attempt to stop or temper the flow of Indus waters on the Jhelum and Chenab rivers will be a crime against humanity.
India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is considered a violation of international law.
This action, as examined in the IWT’s legal perceptivity framework, is viewed as a serious breach of the treaty and a dangerous move, potentially destabilizing the region’s security.
The suspension is also criticized as undermining the established framework of international agreements.
Recently NewDelhi claimed (April 23) that the suspension of IWT allows India to introduce measures such as stopping water flow data and potentially seeking new storage rights.
This move underscores the ongoing tensions and the importance of the treaty in managing water resources.
As per Indian assertion, India can also stop visits by Pakistani officials to the two hydroelectric projects currently under construction in Jammu & Kashmir — the Kishenganga HEP on Kishenganga, a tributary of the Jhelum and the Ratle HEP on the Chenab.
History is a good reminder that immediately after partition, India suddenly suspended– all the river water flowing to Pakistan–threatening Pakistan’s agricultural and agrarian infrastructure because it was heavily reliant on the river water for irrigation.
In response, Pakistan duly approached the international community and, eventually, the World Bank took the very noble initiative of mediating between India and Pakistan for the allocation and distribution of river water between the two countries.
As a result of the mediation of the World Bank, the IWT was signed in 1960 between the two heads of states, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s President Mohammad Ayub Khan respectively.
According to the provisions of the Treaty, all the water of the “Eastern Rivers” of the Indus system — Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — shall be available for India.
Whereas, Pakistan shall receive water from the “Western Rivers” — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.
Moreover, both countries were also given the right of conditional usage of water of each other’s rivers for domestic reasons, such as power generation, agricultural, and other non-consumptive purposes; however, ‘’it was required that such usage must not lower the quantity and natural flow of the water in the river of the other country’’.
The right to water has also been explicitly recognized in a number of legally binding international treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 (CRC) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 1990.
The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), a body of independent experts mandated by ECOSOC to interpret and monitor the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR) which is currently ratified by 157 States, in 2002 issued General Comment No.15: While General Comments may not be binding in a strictly legal sense, they have the considerable weight of an authoritative interpretation of the Covenant.
Arguably, the IWT focuses on the allocation and usage of water resources between India and Pakistan, specifically outlining each country’s rights and obligations regarding the Indus River system’s waters.
The treaty details how the waters of the rivers are to be divided, including those of the Eastern Rivers and Western Rivers, covering both consumptive and non-consumptive usages.
Needless to argue, the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) is one of the oldest confidence-building measures (CBMs) between Islamabad and New Delhi.
The said treaty was pragmatically designed to resolve disputes in the Indus River Basin.
Unfortunately, India has been intermittently exploiting the basin without considering the impact on the mega climate change engulfing the South Asian region.
Amid the rising threats of climate change, the calumny is that it has been the Indian propensity to escalate the resource-based conflict in South Asia.
Nevertheless, the presence of a robust dispute settlement mechanism within the Indus Waters Treaty mechanism notwithstanding, New Delhi has recently called for modifying the treaty without realizing the gravity of its ramification that a modification of the treaty without robust engagement between all interlocutors may lead to an unending water war between two nuclear armed states.
Also, acts targeting water resources with the intent to cause terror, influence political leaders, or inflict harm on civilians could be considered water terrorism.
Such acts might include contamination of water supplies, destruction of water infrastructure, or attacks targeting water distribution networks.
And by now, using the Pahalgam event as a pretext to unilaterally suspend the IWT, New Delhi’s hawkish approach is to callously weaponize the IWT as a Hindutva‘s political and fascist instrument to sponsor water terrorism against Pakistan –potentially impeding Islamabad’s development in the Indus basin.
India’s potential unilateral suspension of the Indus Water Treaty could significantly affect the population dependent on the Indus River system.
The Indus Basin supports over 237 million people, with Pakistan accounting for 61% of the population.
Given India already uses over 90% of its permitted share, any disruption could have considerable consequences for water availability, agriculture, and overall livelihoods in the region, particularly in Pakistan.
Islamabad justifiably discerns India’s suspension of a bilateral treaty as an act of war.
Water is Pakistan’s strategic asset.
Pakistan will engage international diplomacy to revitalize the World Bank’s role in this conflict while systematically countering India’s selective interpretations.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. (rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com)
