On May 20, 2026, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague upheld its earlier ruling affirming the continued validity of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and declaring that India cannot unilaterally suspend it. India's response was defiant, as New Delhi rejected the ruling outright, calling the Court of Arbitration “illegally constituted” and its awards “null and void.” This is not merely a bilateral water dispute. It is a test of whether international law has any meaning when one of its signatories decides to play by its own rules.

Pakistan's position is legally sound, historically grounded, and morally defensible. India's behaviour, by contrast, represents a disturbing precedent: an upper riparian state weaponising geography and domestic politics to undermine a binding treaty that has kept the peace for over six decades.

Signed on September 19, 1960, the IWT was brokered by the World Bank after nearly a decade of painstaking negotiation. It divided the six rivers of the Indus basin between the two nations. India received the three eastern rivers, while Pakistan was allocated the three western rivers, which account for roughly 80% of the basin's total flow.

The treaty is remarkable not just for what it says, but for what it survived. It outlasted three wars, nuclear stand-offs, the Kargil conflict, terrorist attacks, and repeated diplomatic freezes. Even when India and Pakistan were not talking about anything else, they kept talking about water through the Permanent Indus Commission, which met annually as required by the treaty.

The treaty does permit India to build “run-of-the-river” hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, but with strict constraints. India may not create significant storage, may not manipulate water flows seasonally, and must adhere to design specifications that prevent control over downstream release. Pakistan's core complaint regarding Ratle........

© The Friday Times