“Shared waters must not be weaponised,” Dar warns India of consequences over IWT violations

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar on Friday warned India of “profound consequences” for regional peace and security if it sought to deprive Pakistan of waters allocated to it under the Indus Waters Treaty, stressing that shared waters must not be weaponised as a tool of political leverage.

Addressing virtually a seminar titled “The Indus Waters Treaty: South Asian Security at the Crossroads”, organised by the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, Dar said the treaty remained valid and binding despite India’s unilateral decision to place it in “abeyance”.

He described the treaty as more than an agreement governing water, saying it provided a legal framework for managing a vital shared resource and had served as an instrument of regional stability.

Its continued relevance, he suggested, had now become a test of the sanctity of international agreements and the principle that treaty obligations could not be set aside through unilateral political decisions.

Pakistan and India concluded the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960 after years of negotiations facilitated by the World Bank, establishing a framework for the management of the Indus Basin.

“The three Eastern Rivers, the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, were allocated to India for unrestricted use, while the waters of the three Western Rivers, the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, were allocated for Pakistan’s unrestricted use, subject to the specific and carefully defined uses permitted to India under the Treaty,” he said.

Dar said the treaty had replaced upstream discretion with mutually agreed rules and established the Permanent Indus Commission, alongside mechanisms for dealing with questions, differences and disputes which also included government-to-government engagement, a Neutral Expert and, where required, a Court of Arbitration.

Read More: Indus Waters Treaty, regional security situation discussed in FM Dar’s meeting with British foreign secretary

“That institutional architecture was not incidental to the Treaty. It was central to the bargain,” he said.

He said the treaty had endured wars, military crises and prolonged political tensions between the two countries because both sides recognised the importance of keeping water management insulated from their wider relationship.

“Its resilience demonstrated a simple but powerful principle: even the most difficult relationships can sustain cooperation when agreed rules are respected.

“The Treaty endured because both countries understood that waters upon which hundreds of millions of lives depend are too fundamental to be subjected to the fluctuations of political relations.

“However, that principle faces its gravest challenge,” he said, referring to India’s decision in April 2025 to place the treaty “in abeyance”.

Dar said the decision had no basis in the treaty, which, he argued, contained no provision allowing either party to unilaterally suspend or place it in abeyance.

“The Treaty contains no provision permitting either party to unilaterally suspend or place it in abeyance. Nor can either party, through a unilateral political declaration, extinguish obligations solemnly undertaken under international law,” he said.

He said Pakistan’s position was “clear and consistent” that the treaty remained valid, binding and fully operative, adding that treaty-based proceedings had continued despite India’s assertion of “abeyance”.

He said treaty-based proceedings had continued despite India’s assertion of “abeyance”, which he said reinforced the principle that unilateral action could not displace an agreed legal framework.

The foreign minister said the issue went beyond the bilateral relationship, arguing that unilateral action against the treaty could undermine confidence in international law and create a dangerous precedent for treaty relations elsewhere.

“International agreements derive their value from certainty and predictability. If solemn treaty obligations can simply be set aside whenever political relations deteriorate, the very purpose of concluding the treaties is undermined,” he added.

Also Read: ‘We are talking about our lifeline, not a treaty’, Tarar says at IWT seminar

For Pakistan, he said, the issue was not an abstract legal debate, while calling the Indus Basin a lifeline for more than 250 million Pakistanis and said that the country’s agriculture, food security, energy production, livelihoods and economic development were deeply dependent on the river system.

“Water security for Pakistan is therefore inseparable from economic security, food security and, ultimately, national security,” said the minister.

He said unilateral interference with such an arrangement could have implications not only for South Asian stability but also for treaty relations elsewhere.

“International agreements derive their value from certainty and predictability. If solemn treaty obligations can simply be set aside whenever political relations deteriorate, the very purpose of concluding the treaties is undermined.”

Dar also highlighted the pressures created by climate change, including changing precipitation patterns, glacial retreat, floods, droughts and increasing hydrological variability, which were placing additional pressure on an already stressed system.

“These realities should compel greater and stronger cooperation,” he said, calling for improved and transparent data-sharing, sustained technical engagement, greater transparency and collective efforts to strengthen climate resilience.

He said climate pressures could not be used to justify abandoning agreed legal rights and obligations, adding that the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanisms had been created precisely to address differences between the two countries.

Read More: UK officials praise Pakistan’s US-Iran mediation, leadership in ‘challenging times’: Dar

“The answer to disagreement was therefore built into the Treaty itself: dialogue, technical engagement and lawful dispute resolution,” he said while adding that the treaty implementation was never made contingent upon political convenience.

Dar said Pakistan had consistently sought to resolve differences through dialogue, diplomacy and mechanisms provided under the treaty, stressing that recourse to the Permanent Indus Commission, a Neutral Expert or a Court of Arbitration was not an act of confrontation.

Pakistan, he said, remained committed to peaceful settlement, with lasting peace resting on sovereign equality, mutual respect and faithful implementation of international obligations.

However, he warned that any attempt to deprive Pakistan of waters allocated under the treaty would have serious implications for regional peace and security.

“Any attempt to deprive Pakistan of the waters rightfully allocated to it under the Indus Waters Treaty would have profound consequences for regional peace and security. Pakistan will safeguard its legitimate rights and interests under the Treaty and international law,” the deputy prime minister vowed.

He said Pakistan’s preference remained for “law over unilateralism, dialogue over confrontation, and cooperation over coercion”, adding that the approach was consistent with Pakistan’s wider conduct in international affairs, as reflected in its recent diplomatic efforts to facilitate dialogue and de-escalation during the US-Iran crisis.

“Pakistan seeks to be a force for peace and stability, in South Asia and beyond.”

The foreign minister said the treaty had demonstrated for more than six decades that Pakistan and India could insulate a vital shared resource from their wider relationship.

Read: Chorus on India’s IWT violations is louder

“That achievement should not be dismantled. It should be preserved.”

He outlined three principles for the way forward: respect and implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty “in letter and spirit”; resolution of all questions, differences and disputes through the mechanisms provided by the treaty; and restoration and strengthening of technical engagement, transparency and data-sharing in accordance with the treaty.

“These are not unreasonable demands. They are the requirements of an agreement solemnly concluded by two sovereign States and sustained for more than six decades.”

Concluding his remarks, Dar urged the preservation of the Indus, calling it a source of life, livelihood and civilisation rather than a fault line for confrontation.

“Shared waters must never be weaponized,” he said. “They should remain a bridge between nations, governed by law, sustained through cooperation, and protected for generations to come.”