Credited from: AA
India's Home Minister Amit Shah has firmly stated that the Indus Waters Treaty "will never be restored," following a series of violent incidents between the two nations. The treaty, initially established in 1960 to peacefully share water resources, has been put into "abeyance" after 26 civilians were killed in an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, which India attributes to Pakistani involvement. This decision means water rights, previously guaranteed for agriculture in Pakistan, will now be redirected for internal use in India, with Shah asserting, "We will take water that was flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan" via new infrastructure projects, according to South China Morning Post and Anadolu Agency.
Shah elaborated on India's legal stance, emphasizing that while treaties cannot be annulled unilaterally, India maintains the right to suspend its participation in the treaty. This assertion has been met with stern criticism from Pakistan, whose Foreign Ministry has condemned India's approach as a violation of international law. The treaty, which governs the usage of the Indus River system crucial for both countries, includes no provisions for one side to act unilaterally, as highlighted by Pakistani officials, according to Al Jazeera and Anadolu Agency.
The escalating situation has drawn severe concerns from Pakistani leaders. Former diplomat Bilawal Bhutto Zardari warned that ongoing disputes over water could potentially lead to armed conflict. He reiterated that India’s threats to withhold water are illegal and called for renewed dialogue to address this regional instability. He stated, "If India decides to follow through on the (water) threat, we will have to wage war again," underscoring the high stakes surrounding this issue, as reported by Anadolu Agency.
Experts suggest that India's unilateral actions regarding the Indus Waters Treaty defy customary international laws and established treaties. Ahmad Bilal Soofi, a legal expert, insisted that modifications to the treaty require mutual consent. He noted that terminology such as "abeyance" does not exist within the treaty’s framework, pointing to the challenges that lie ahead for both nations as they navigate these complex legal waters and ongoing tensions, according to Al Jazeera and South China Morning Post.