IWT issue matter of national security for Pakistan: Indus Waters commissioner – Pakistan



Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters Syed Muhammad Mehar Ali Shah said on Tuesday that the issue of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) for Pakistan was not just a matter of hydrology but national security.

“When the lives and livelihoods of more than 240 million are tied to the Indus basin, when more than 80 per cent of the arable land depends on these waters […], when agriculture contributes almost a quarter of GDP and almost one-third of employment, water uncertainty becomes national uncertainty,” he explained, highlighting the significance of the water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan.

The commissioner remarked, “Flow prediction is not a luxury of planning but part of the survival architecture of the state.”

He expressed these views at a seminar held in Islamabad to highlight the legal and constitutional framework of the IWT, which remains a contentious issue between India and Pakistan.

The 1960 treaty regulates the distribution of the Indus River system between India and Pakistan.

However, India announced last year that it was placing its IWT obligations in abeyance. The announcement followed an attack on tourists in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam that killed 26 tourists — an incident New Delhi blamed on Islamabad without evidence. For its part, Pakistan strongly denied the allegations and called for a neutral investigation.

The treaty and its status remain a point of contention between the two sides since, with an Indian minister recently saying that they were working to stop the flow of water into Pakistan, and Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar later assailing 17 projects by India on Indus waterways as “tools for hydro-hegemony”.

In his address at the Islamabad seminar, Shah said the IWT was a “conflict prevention system” and that “Pakistan’s restraint has been deliberate”.

“But water, food, livelihood, and social stability are not negotiable abstractions; that is why Pakistan has publicly defined the strategic threshold for any attempt to stop and divert the treaty water belonging to Pakistan,” he explained.

The commissioner for Indus Waters said the IWT had converted a “territorial water system” into a legal structure by fixing rights and obligations each party owed to the other.

“The eastern rivers were allocated to India, and the western were placed under Pakistan, with India’s use confined to carefully defined exceptions,” he recalled. “Pakistan accepted that bargain, rebuilt its irrigation life around that bargain and planned its national water economy around the assurance that the western rivers would be let flow.”

“The bargain remains a bargain,” he said, stressing that the agreement was “not a favour, but a binding settlement”.

The commissioner reiterated that the treaty functioned as a “conflict prevention design” and was engineered for “peace”.

He said the treaty worked because of four elements operating together — allocation, cooperation, the institution and dispute control, the Indus Water Commission in this case.

Shah further explained, “Allocation tells each side what it may use, what it may not; cooperation provides data, notice and inspection, and commission gives a regular channel of communication,” he said, warning that removing any of these elements would lead to the peace function failing.

“Therefore, abeyance is not a diplomatic slogan but an attempt to disable the stabilising architecture of the treaty,” he said.

Mentioning Article 8 of the IWT, which pertains to the Indus Water Commission, he said the operating mechanism kept “water out of conflict”.

Talking about Article 9 of the treaty, Shah said it provided an “elaborate dispute resolution mechanism” that began at the bilateral level and, if that failed, the process “without any paralysis” moved on to a third-party forum.

“The sequence is deliberate: institutional settlement first and third-party determination where necessary but no paralysis,” he added.

On the arbitration mechanism outlined in the treaty, Shah said that the Court of Arbitration had “reactivated the treaty” and addressed any legal uncertainty around the issue.

He recalled that India began work on projects planned for western rivers of the Indus system in 2000, and there had always been discord between the two parties.

“In 2016, Pakistan decided that now it’s time to have the general interpretation of the IWT, particularly the provisions which govern the development by India on the western rivers,” he said, recalling that Pakistan received two awards from the Court of Arbitration — one in 2025 and another in May, 2026.

Shah said the court confirmed “four essential” points in its rulings: “First, India’s non-appearance before the court does not paralyse the proceedings. Second, the abeyance posture does not deprive the court of competence. Third, the award is final, binding and controlling. And India must let the western rivers flow with treaty exceptions applied strictly.”

He asserted that it was not merely “political rhetoric” or Pakistan’s stance but the “treaty speaking through its own court”.

The commissioner said Pakistan did not object to “lawful hydropower”, but the “unlawful control, excessive discreation and opaque operations are a problem”.

He further said that Pakistan, in the past year, had tried to keep the channel of communication and data-sharing under the IWT active despite India holding the treaty in abeyance.

“Pakistan continued to provide the required data, sent correspondents, requested meetings, inspections, project information and [held] Article 9 consultations,” he said; however, he added that Pakistan received no response from the Indian side.

He said that the Indian side followed a similar pattern before the 2025 abeyance, recalling that the last commission meeting was held in May 2022.

“No general or special tour of inspection, corresponding monthly data has remained outstanding after August 2023 and multiple core treaty communications have received no response,” he added.

“This is precisely what increases the risk of avoidable escalation,” he warned, adding that “hydrological information is not a diplomatic courtesy” but rather an “operational necessity”.

“Without data, the downstream state is forced to guess whether it faces nature or the upstream operation,” he explained.

Shah further recalled that he had written to his Indian counterpart last night over “significant fluctuations” in the flow of the River Chenab “for the fourth time since last year in April”.

He said the fluctuation was not a “technical inconvenience, but rather a strategic hazard”.

He said a lack of data would shrink the flood forecast windows, diminish predictive confidence for barrages and reservoirs and displace technical verification.

“There is no brainer in understanding that data-sharing is the line between natural risk and manufactured vulnerability.”

Speaking the fluctuating flows in the Chenab River, he demanded that India answer for the fluctuations.

“I will state this carefully and without overclaiming causation. These events required explanation and operational data, and we have been asking India through treaty channels, but there is no response from the Indian side, and no response creates a risk,” he said.

He said that no “responsible” downstream commissioner would look at the fluctuation as “routine and move on”.

“These are precisely the events the commission exists to examine,” he added.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *