The article authored by India’s Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Kwatra, discusses the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and its nuances. It highlights the perspective that the treaty is seen by some as an imbalanced arrangement, unfairly benefiting Pakistan, while also accusing Pakistan of hindering India’s hydropower initiatives on the Western Rivers.
India’s narrative has gained momentum especially after its 2025 decision to place the treaty “in abeyance.” This move is described as a retroactive attempt to justify actions lacking legal standing in either the treaty or international law.
The IWT, a crucial international agreement, was established on September 19, 1960, after a decade of negotiations under the World Bank’s auspices. It wasn’t about generosity or concession but about creating a structured legal arrangement. This agreement defined specific rights and obligations, replacing arbitrary decisions and providing stability and clarity in managing the Indus River System.
Under this arrangement, India received free rein over the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej), while Pakistan’s rights on the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) were protected. Pakistan adapted its irrigation systems accordingly, abandoning reliance on the Eastern Rivers.
To argue the treaty’s inequity ignores the context and careful balance in its design. India’s limitations on the Western Rivers ensure downstream water security for Pakistan, vital for the treaty’s longevity over six decades.
Claims that Pakistan obstructs India’s hydropower projects are disputed. The treaty allows India to build run-of-river hydroelectric plants on Western Rivers, following specific criteria. Pakistan’s use of the treaty’s dispute mechanisms is a legitimate exercise of rights, not obstruction.
India must adhere to all treaty stipulations when seeking hydropower benefits, including technical limitations and resolution procedures. The Court of Arbitration has upheld the treaty’s ongoing relevance and safeguards, reaffirming the need for compliance in its awards, such as the May 2026 Supplemental Award.
Allegations of security issues or terrorism do not provide grounds to suspend or alter the treaty. The IWT does not permit unilateral suspension or termination without mutual consent and ratification by both governments.
For more than 60 years, the IWT has been a framework for managing an essential transboundary water system. This framework relies on binding rules, not goodwill, to resolve disputes. Undermining it for strategic advantage endangers peace in a volatile region.
Pakistan remains focused on adhering to the treaty’s terms and encourages India to comply fully with its obligations, using the established institutional and dispute-resolution channels. Water security for 250 million Pakistanis is at stake, as is the treaty’s role in maintaining regional stability.
Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the U.S. since August 2024, emphasizes the importance of continued adherence to the treaty for the wellbeing of his country’s population.