India's revocation of Indus Water Treaty will be considered an act of war: Aziz
Pakistan will not accept Indian aggression in any form, says Adviser to PM
Prime Minister's Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz. PHOTO: REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz has said any violation of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) from India would pertain to considerable risk of war and hostilities between the two countries.
“Pakistan will not accept Indian aggression in any form and any Indian step for disrupting water flow as upper riparian will pertain to considerable risk of war and hostilities,” the adviser said in the National Assembly in response to a calling attention notice on Tuesday.
The House also unanimously passed a resolution condemning “falsified Indian claim in United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) about Jammu and Kashmir being integral part of India.”
The NA criticised Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s speech in UNGA on Monday for “drawing parallels between Jammu and Kashmir, a recognised disputed territory and Balochistan, an integral part of sovereign Pakistan.”
Desperate Modi now plots to run Pakistan dry
Aziz said India was under pressure "due to our diplomatic efforts" and raising the Kashmir issue on international stage.
The adviser explained the provisions of IWT, saying as per sub provision 3 and 4 of provisions of Article 12 of IWT, the treaty could not be altered or revoked unilaterally, adding that the World Bank had facilitated the treaty and its role is defined in the treaty in case of violation by any party.
However, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf MNA Shireen Mazari questioned the claim. “None of the provisions in the Treaty says the World Bank was guarantor of the treaty between the two countries, rather it was a facilitator." Aziz confirmed Mazari’s assertion of the Bank's role as a facilitator.
He said the treaty would continue to be in force until modified by both the countries after an understanding. “This treaty is for an indefinite period and binding. It is not time specific or event specific.”
Why things will likely be quiet on the India-Pakistan border
The adviser warned that if India tried to interrupt water flow into Pakistan as an upper riparian it would not only violate the Treaty but also set a regional state practice under which an international law can serve as precedence for others.
“Such an Indian act may also provide China with a justification to consider suspension of water of Indian river Brahmaputra."
Aziz said the Treaty survived wars of 1965 and 1971 between Pakistan and India, and was not even suspended during Kargil and Siachin conflicts. “The treaty is quoted as most successful water treaty between the two countries and its revocation can be taken as an act of war or a hostile act against Pakistan.”
Answering PTI’s Munaza Hassan’s question as to why the government had not mentioned Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav’s arrest from Balochistan, the adviser said the government was preparing a comprehensive dossier on Yadav and Indian interference in Balochistan, as well as its operations through Afghanistan. “We will expose India at the UNSC and before the international community.”
Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz has said any violation of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) from India would pertain to considerable risk of war and hostilities between the two countries.
“Pakistan will not accept Indian aggression in any form and any Indian step for disrupting water flow as upper riparian will pertain to considerable risk of war and hostilities,” the adviser said in the National Assembly in response to a calling attention notice on Tuesday.
The House also unanimously passed a resolution condemning “falsified Indian claim in United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) about Jammu and Kashmir being integral part of India.”
The NA criticised Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s speech in UNGA on Monday for “drawing parallels between Jammu and Kashmir, a recognised disputed territory and Balochistan, an integral part of sovereign Pakistan.”
Desperate Modi now plots to run Pakistan dry
Aziz said India was under pressure "due to our diplomatic efforts" and raising the Kashmir issue on international stage.
The adviser explained the provisions of IWT, saying as per sub provision 3 and 4 of provisions of Article 12 of IWT, the treaty could not be altered or revoked unilaterally, adding that the World Bank had facilitated the treaty and its role is defined in the treaty in case of violation by any party.
However, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf MNA Shireen Mazari questioned the claim. “None of the provisions in the Treaty says the World Bank was guarantor of the treaty between the two countries, rather it was a facilitator." Aziz confirmed Mazari’s assertion of the Bank's role as a facilitator.
He said the treaty would continue to be in force until modified by both the countries after an understanding. “This treaty is for an indefinite period and binding. It is not time specific or event specific.”
Why things will likely be quiet on the India-Pakistan border
The adviser warned that if India tried to interrupt water flow into Pakistan as an upper riparian it would not only violate the Treaty but also set a regional state practice under which an international law can serve as precedence for others.
“Such an Indian act may also provide China with a justification to consider suspension of water of Indian river Brahmaputra."
Aziz said the Treaty survived wars of 1965 and 1971 between Pakistan and India, and was not even suspended during Kargil and Siachin conflicts. “The treaty is quoted as most successful water treaty between the two countries and its revocation can be taken as an act of war or a hostile act against Pakistan.”
Answering PTI’s Munaza Hassan’s question as to why the government had not mentioned Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav’s arrest from Balochistan, the adviser said the government was preparing a comprehensive dossier on Yadav and Indian interference in Balochistan, as well as its operations through Afghanistan. “We will expose India at the UNSC and before the international community.”