Every so often a diplomatic intervention arrives that tells you more about the author’s political needs than the law it claims to explain. Vinay Mohan Kwatra’s recent Newsweek essay on the Indus Waters Treaty falls squarely into that category. It is presented as a legal defence of India’s unilateral “abeyance,” but in truth it is a political argument searching for a legal costume.

The central question is not whether India is frustrated with Pakistan, or whether bilateral relations have deteriorated. The central question is whether a state can simply suspend a binding international treaty by issuing a unilateral political declaration. The answer, under the treaty’s own terms, is no.

Where, exactly, is the power of unilateral abeyance located? It does not appear anywhere in the text. Article XII(4) provides one path for ending the treaty: termination through a duly ratified treaty concluded between both governments. That is mutual consent, not unilateral suspension. There is no pause clause, no suspension mechanism, no emergency exit. India is asking the international community to accept a power the treaty never granted. If New Delhi can simply invent an “abeyance” power when compliance becomes inconvenient, what prevents any state from doing the same with any treaty? The Indus Waters Treaty was designed to survive political turbulence, not to be switched off whenever one side feels aggrieved. Pakistan, for its part, has continued to uphold the treaty and has called for its dispute-resolution mechanisms to be allowed to function. That is what treaty compliance looks like.

Where, exactly, is the power of unilateral abeyance located? It does not appear anywhere in the text.

Where, exactly, is the power of unilateral abeyance located? It does........

© Daily Times