Islamabad:
Experts have called India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty as a political stunt and an eye washing designed to place the Indian public and emphasize that Delhi cannot unilaterally revoke or suspend the agreement.
“India or Pakistan cannot suspend or revoke the Indus Waters Treaty one -sided, and any change in the treaty would require mutual consent,” the former Pakistan Commissioner of Indus Waters (PCIW) Jamaat Ali Shah told Express Pakinomist.
He said that the Indus Waters Treaty is a permanent agreement and that India would therefore have to take Pakistan in confidence to suspend or revoke it.
Shah, who described the Indian message as nothing but political theater, said the move was a red herring that aimed to mislead the Indian public. He emphasized that Pakistan should also issue a political reaction to the statement. He pointed out that if India went away one -sided, it would effectively lose its rights to the rivers assigned to it during the Treaty.
In response to a question, he clarified that the World Bank is not a guarantor of the Indus Waters Treaty, but rather an international body that facilitates dispute resolution between the two countries. It can even help set up an international arbitration court in the event of a waters between Pakistan and India.
Meanwhile, Minister of Power Awais Leghari also responded to the Indian message, saying that India’s “rushed and ruthless suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty constitutes water war, a feig and illegal act”.
“Every drop (water) is our right, and we will defend it with all our power at the legal, political and international level.”
Experts observed that any suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty signalizes aggression and extremism from India, pointing out that the agreement cannot be unilaterally suspended or revoked.
They also warned that such unilateral action would have doubts about the credibility of all international agreements.
By emphasizing that the treaty did not include any provision for unilateral “suspension”, it noted that it was designed to be of indefinite duration and was not bound to specific events or timeframes.
According to them, both India and Pakistan are just as bound to comply with the treaty.
By stopping the streams of water in Pakistani rivers, India would not only violate international water law, but also set a dangerous precedent.
International law generally claims that the country of upstream (like India) has no right to block water to a downstream land (like Pakistan), even in the absence of a formal treaty.
Experts warned that if India establishes such a pattern of behavior, it could set a regional precedent with implications outside South Asia.
For example, China may mention this step to justify the blockage of water flows into the Brahmaputra River. Thus, India’s action could prove self -emerging in the long run, as countries such as China will monitor the situation closely.
The Indus Waters Treaty, which was established in 1960, clearly decides that any change must be made with the mutual consent of both parties. After ratified the treaty, India would violate its obligations by suspending it one -sided.
Such a step would not only conflict with established established mechanisms for dispute resolution – such as the permanent Indus Commission, independent experts or an arbitration court – but also undermine the spirit of the agreement.
