Attiya Munawer<\/p>\n
Several persistent conflicts in South Asian politics are not merely disputes between two countries, but can affect the peace, stability and future of the entire region. The Indus Waters Treaty between Pakistan and India is one such case. For more than six decades, it has kept water disputes within a defined legal framework. However, India\u2019s unilateral approach to the treaty in recent years has again raised the question of whether water can be used as an instrument of political pressure.
\nThe Hague Arbitration Court\u2019s recent ruling on the Indus Waters Treaty is therefore significant. The ruling states that the treaty remains in effect and that India cannot unilaterally suspend or discontinue it. The court has also imposed specific restrictions on the construction of certain infrastructure for the Ratle Hydroelectric Project in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This supports Pakistan\u2019s basic position that international treaties cannot be terminated by the political decision of one party.
\nThe issue goes beyond the Ratle project. At stake is the principle of compliance with international agreements. The Indus Waters Treaty is not a temporary political arrangement, but an international agreement that has governed the complex issue of river water sharing since 1960. Under the agreement, Pakistan\u2019s interests are linked to the waters of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab rivers, while India has rights over the eastern rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. This arrangement has preserved a degree of water cooperation despite wars and periods of intense political tension.
\nIndeed, one of the treaty\u2019s greatest strengths is that it survived even when relations between the two countries deteriorated sharply. Its purpose was to separate water from political confrontation and subject disagreements to a structured legal and technical process. If one party assumes it can alter the status of an international treaty whenever political circumstances change, the consequences extend beyond water. It weakens the broader principle that international agreements must be respected.
\nRiver water is not the property of a single government, party or nation. It is a shared natural resource on which millions of lives depend. The Indus River system is the backbone of Pakistan\u2019s agriculture, food production, industry, employment and wider economy. Any attempt to use water flows as a tool of diplomatic or political pressure is therefore a serious matter for Pakistan.
\nThe danger becomes even greater when the countries involved are nuclear powers. If water becomes another source of confrontation between Pakistan and India, the resulting instability will not remain confined to Islamabad and New Delhi. It could affect the entire region at a time when South Asia already faces water scarcity, food insecurity, environmental pressures and economic challenges.
\nPakistan\u2019s legal approach has produced an important ruling in its favour, but the real test lies in implementation. The value of an international judgment rests not only in its wording but in whether the parties comply with it. Pakistan must therefore continue strengthening its position through diplomatic, legal and technical channels rather than relying only on political rhetoric.
\nThe international community, particularly countries and institutions committed to international law, should also recognise the sensitivity of the issue. Diplomatic pressure and support for treaty obligations can help ensure that established mechanisms for resolving water disputes are respected.
\nBoth Pakistan and India need to draw lessons from their difficult history. South Asia does not need another confrontation. It needs cooperation on water scarcity, food security, environmental protection and economic development. The Indus Waters Treaty has already survived wars and decades of hostility. That record shows that even bitter rivals can preserve agreements when both recognise that some issues are too important to be reduced to political bargaining.
\nIf water is weaponised, an entire generation may bear the consequences. If the rivers are instead treated as a foundation for cooperation, law and mutual benefit, they can continue to serve as a source of stability. Ultimately, history will judge whether South Asia allowed water to become another cause of conflict or used it as a path towards peace.<\/p>\n
The writer is an activist and environmen-talist. She covers human rights and politico-environmental issues. She tweets @AttiyaMunawer and can be reached at attiabutt121@gmail.com<\/p>\n
Courtesy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Attiya Munawer Several persistent conflicts in South Asian politics are not merely disputes between two countries, but can affect the peace, stability and future of the entire region. The Indus Waters Treaty between Pakistan and India is one such case. For more than six decades, it has kept water disputes within a defined legal framework. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[9843],"class_list":["post-566822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-article","tag-attiya-munawer"],"yoast_head":"\n