India Rejects Hague Ruling on Indus Waters Treaty Amidst Heightened Tensions

New delhi: The Indus Waters Treaty, a longstanding accord between India and Pakistan, is facing renewed discord as India has dismissed a ruling from a Hague-based Court of Arbitration that declared the 1960 agreement as still valid. Pakistan, on the other hand, has welcomed the tribunal's decision, maintaining that India remains bound by the treaty's terms. According to Deutsche Welle, India's Ministry of External Affairs has criticized the tribunal, referring to it as a "so-called Court of Arbitration" that was "illegally constituted." The ministry argued that the World Bank established the tribunal in violation of the treaty and stated that India "categorically rejects its so-called award, just as it has firmly rejected all prior pronouncements by this illegally constituted body." The ministry further asserted that the Court of Arbitration has no authority over India's sovereign decisions. The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank, delineates the use of water from six rivers flowing between Indi a and Pakistan. Under the treaty, India has rights over three eastern rivers, while Pakistan holds rights over the western Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers. Despite enduring through wars and periods of tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, the treaty was placed in abeyance by India in April 2025 following a deadly attack in India-administered Kashmir, which killed 26 people. India accused Pakistan of backing the attack, a charge that Islamabad has denied. The stakes are particularly high for Pakistan, as millions of its citizens rely on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers for essential needs such as drinking water and agriculture. The rivers are crucial to the Punjab and Sindh provinces, which are vital to Pakistan's food supply and rural economy. Following India's suspension of the treaty, Pakistan approached the court in The Hague to contest the treaty's status. Pakistani officials have consistently warned that any attempt to deny the country its share of the waters would be considered an act o f war. Ajay Bisaria, former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, noted that India has challenged the treaty on both political and legal grounds. He suggested that the abeyance provides India with a new point of leverage over Pakistan, particularly concerning cross-border terrorism. Bisaria also highlighted India's previous requests to renegotiate the treaty, citing reasons such as climate change, advances in dam-building technology, and deteriorating bilateral relations. In contrast, Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar argued that the ruling "decisively rejects" India's attempt to suspend the treaty, reaffirming it as "fully in force and binding on both parties." Dar emphasized that India must adhere to its obligations under the treaty and comply with binding decisions from its dispute-resolution mechanisms. Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani political scientist, expressed skepticism regarding the implementation of the ruling, given India's refusal to accept it. She noted that while t he court's decision may not be enforceable, it provides Pakistan with a moral advantage as a lower riparian state. Siddiqa also questioned the impact of India's rejection on its international standing, particularly since India has previously accepted international legal decisions in other disputes. Shanthie Mariet D'Souza, a South Asia analyst, pointed out that India's nonparticipation in the proceedings allowed it not to recognize the tribunal's rulings, leaving New Delhi without enforceable constraints. The disagreement over the treaty has been long-standing, with disputes over Indian hydropower projects on rivers allocated primarily to Pakistan. Uttam Kumar Sinha, a senior fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies, remarked that India is now challenging not just the interpretation of the treaty but the authority of its dispute-settlement mechanism. The current situation underscores the complexities and limitations of India's leverage over the western rivers. While the abeyance provide s political and psychological leverage, actual changes to water flows would require significant infrastructure investments, which are currently not in place.