Pakistan’s willingness to engage with these experts demonstrated its willingness to cooperate
ISLAMABAD:
Despite serious challenges to the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) due to the policies and ideology of Modi’s Hindutva-driven government, Pakistan adopted a calm, cautious and international law-based approach.
Pakistan’s strategy emphasized patience, legal recourse, and proactive diplomacy, which not only helped protect the country’s rights as a riparian state, but also strengthened its image as a responsible member of the international community.
The situation worsened and became tense when India unilaterally decided to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty in violation of international laws, raising serious concerns because the treaty does not allow any country to suspend it on its own.
In international law, agreements between countries must be respected – a principle known as Pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be respected). India’s move created uncertainty and raised questions about whether international agreements can be so easily ignored.
Former chairman of the Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) and renowned water expert Dr. Muhammad Aslam Tahir was of the view that Pakistan always acted as a responsible state and India under the influence of Modi’s Handutva ideology resorted to violating all international laws and norms.
He went on to say that instead of reacting emotionally, Pakistan chose to follow the legal approach by turning to institutions already built into the treaty system, including the Court of Arbitration and neutral experts. “These are official mechanisms designed to resolve disputes peacefully.
By using them, Pakistan showed that it believes in resolving conflicts through law rather than confrontation,” he noted.
It is worth mentioning here that one of the biggest developments happened when the Arbitral Tribunal confirmed that the IWT is still valid, regardless of India’s position.
This was a visible victory for Pakistan. The decision made it clear that no country can ignore a treaty on its own and that refusal to participate does not remove legal responsibility.
This decision further strengthened Pakistan’s case and reinforced the importance of international agreements.
Dr. Muhammad Aslam said the neutral experts also supported the dispute settlement process, which shows that the treaty still has strong and functioning mechanisms.
Pakistan’s willingness to engage with these experts demonstrated its commitment to cooperation, while India’s limited participation created a visible difference in how both countries handled the situation, he argued.
Pakistan also raised the issue in international forums including the UN, where special rapporteurs (independent experts) took interest in this serious issue and raised questions about possible treaty violations.
This helped move the issue from a simple bilateral dispute to a broader global concern involving international law, human rights and equitable access to water.
Despite receiving formal questions from UN experts, India has not given a detailed response even after the deadline. This silence has raised concerns internationally, showing India’s lack of commitment to global accountability systems and weakening respect for international rules. Such behavior could set a risky precedent if other countries also start to ignore treaties.
Another water expert Dr. Ahmad Ashraf said that water is a critical resource especially for Pakistan. As a downstream country, it depends heavily on the rivers governed by the treaty. Any disruption could affect agriculture, energy production and the daily lives of millions of people, he said.
He said Pakistan has focused on protecting the treaty through legal means rather than escalating tensions. India tried to justify its actions by linking the treaty with the Pahalgam false flag incident. However, strong evidence has not been presented in international legal forums or by neutral bodies.
