Sharing water post Indus Waters Treaty: The road ahead for India, Pakistan

The PCA-hosted Court of Arbitration has issued two further orders in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) dispute, holding India’s decision to keep the Treaty in “abeyance” impermissible and directing a pause in construction at the Ratle Hydroelectric Project.

Latest Rulings

• The Court held that India cannot unilaterally place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, and therefore considers the Treaty to remain legally in force.
• It directed India to halt specified construction activity at the Ratle Hydroelectric Project until the technical dispute is resolved.
• This represents another ruling by the Court broadly supporting Pakistan’s position in the dispute.
• The Court, constituted in 2022, has previously affirmed its jurisdiction and described its awards as final and binding.
• With the latest orders, the Court has substantially addressed the issues placed before it by Pakistan.

Why India Rejects the Court

• India maintains that the Court of Arbitration was improperly constituted under the dispute-settlement provisions of the IWT.
• India argues that a Neutral Expert had already been appointed to examine the technical disputes and that simultaneous proceedings are incompatible with the Treaty.
• India declined to nominate its two arbitrators, but the proceedings continued with Pakistan’s nominees and three umpires appointed through Treaty-specified mechanisms.
• New Delhi therefore does not recognise the Court’s awards and maintains that its decision to keep the Treaty in abeyance remains operative from its perspective.

Why Enforcement Is Difficult

• The arbitral mechanism has no independent coercive enforcement machinery capable of physically compelling India to alter its conduct.
• India’s refusal to recognise the proceedings makes implementation of the awards extremely difficult in practice.
• Pakistan can nevertheless use the rulings as diplomatic and legal support in international forums.

Pakistan’s Options	India’s Strategic Approach
Raise the dispute before the UN Security Council as a regional-security issue. Seek support for referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through the UN system. Use PCA rulings for international diplomatic and legal narrative-building against India. International legal options face significant political and procedural hurdles. More likely to continue portraying India as a treaty violator at international forums.	Expedite projects on the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab to maximise permitted water and hydropower use. Pursue major infrastructure projects worth about ₹50,000 crore in Jammu and Kashmir. Explore projects such as Chenab–Beas diversion, though these raise Treaty-related questions. Disengage from the Neutral Expert process to avoid signalling continued acceptance of the Treaty framework. Continue sharing hydrological data through diplomatic channels rather than the Permanent Indus Commission. Link the Treaty’s future to Pakistan’s approach towards cross-border terrorism. Prefer bilateral renegotiation without third-party involvement.

Can Water Continue to Flow Without the Treaty?

• Suspension or abeyance of a treaty does not automatically mean physical stoppage of river flows.
• Geography and existing infrastructure make complete interruption of western-river flows highly impractical.
• Pakistan is therefore likely to continue receiving substantial Indus-system waters even as India expands its own utilisation.
• India also shares several transboundary rivers with neighbouring countries under different arrangements, not always through comprehensive water-sharing treaties.
• Pakistan’s long-term water stress is also strongly linked to domestic storage constraints, irrigation inefficiency and water-management weaknesses.

The Indus Waters Treaty dispute has entered a practical stalemate: the Court’s rulings support Pakistan legally, while India rejects the Court’s authority and continues pursuing its own water and infrastructure strategy.