India’s suspension of Indus Waters Treaty, International Law, and Pakistan’s right of self-defence

India approves Dulhasti II on Chenab, violating IWT and threatening Pakistan’s water, security, and environment

On 16 January 2026, India unilaterally approved the Dulhasti Stage-II Hydropower Project on the Chenab River, following its suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in April 2025, a treaty signed between India and Pakistan. This action violates the Treaty’s provisions governing the Western Rivers and infringes upon Pakistan’s legally protected rights under this binding international agreement. India’s move marks a dangerous strategic shift, turning water from a shared resource into a tool of coercion and directly threatening Pakistan’s national, human, and environmental security.

The unilateral suspension and expedited approval of upstream projects—including the withholding of hydrological data, diversion of river flows, and alteration of natural regimes—constitute deliberate water weaponization, jeopardizing Pakistan’s agriculture, food security, hydropower generation, and ecological stability. Under the IWT, customary international law, and Article 51 of the UN Charter, Pakistan has clear legal avenues to respond. International law expressly prohibits the use of water as a weapon against downstream populations, making strict enforcement of the IWT essential not only for bilateral stability but also for the integrity of global water governance norms.

India’s Conduct as Water Weaponization

India’s suspension of the Treaty, coupled with withholding of hydrological data and accelerated approval of upstream projects, constitutes deliberate water weaponization under international law. This includes manipulating river flows to exert political or economic pressure, deliberate withholding of flood and flow data, and using essential natural resources as coercive instruments.

Such conduct violates core IWT obligations, breaches customary international water law, infringes human rights—including the right to water, food, and life—and contravenes environmental law principles such as the precautionary principle, environmental impact assessment obligations, and sustainable development norms. Water weaponization destabilizes the region, undermines humanitarian protection, and violates the fundamental purpose of transboundary water law, which is to prevent upstream coercion against downstream populations.

The Indus Waters Treaty 1960

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was brokered and facilitated by the World Bank, which acted as a neutral third-party guarantor and mediator to resolve disputes arising from the partition of the Indus Basin waters in 1947. The Treaty was formally signed on 19 September 1960 by the two countries: for India, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and for Pakistan, President Ayub Khan. It established a legally binding framework for the allocation, management, and use of the Indus River system, providing specific rights and obligations to both countries while ensuring mechanisms to address disputes peacefully under international oversight.

Negotiated over nearly a decade under World Bank mediation, the IWT was designed to depoliticize river management between India and Pakistan and establish a legally binding framework in 1960 for water allocation, operation, and dispute resolution. Under the Treaty, the Eastern Rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—are allocated to India, while the Western Rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—are allocated to Pakistan, subject to limited Indian uses. Key provisions include Article III, guaranteeing Pakistan’s exclusive rights over the Western Rivers; Article IV, prohibiting interference with natural flows; Annexures D and E, establishing engineering and operational limits on Indian hydropower projects; and Article IX, providing dispute resolution mechanisms via the Permanent Indus Commission, a Neutral Expert, and the Court of Arbitration.

The IWT is binding under international law. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) enshrines the principle of pacta sunt servanda, requiring treaties to be performed in good faith. The Treaty contains no provision for unilateral suspension or withdrawal, and Articles 60 and 62 of the VCLT permit suspension only in cases of material breach or fundamental change of circumstances—conditions absent in India’s 2025 actions. These obligations are continuous and binding, making India’s unilateral suspension legally untenable under both treaty law and customary international law.

Pakistan’s Dependence on the Indus Basin

Pakistan is highly dependent on the Western Rivers, with nearly seventy percent of its agriculture reliant on their flows. Major urban centers, industrial zones, and hydropower plants also require uninterrupted water supply, and no alternative systems are sufficient to offset upstream manipulations. Even minor storage or withholding of hydrological data by India can trigger crop failures, energy shortages, flooding, or drought, affecting millions of civilians and causing cascading economic and social crises. This dependency elevates the legal, humanitarian, and strategic significance of the Treaty. Upstream manipulation is not merely a technical violation—it constitutes a direct threat to civilian survival, which international law regards with heightened concern. Enforcement of the IWT is therefore a matter of national survival, human security, and international accountability.

Chronology of Disputes under the Indus Waters Treaty

Pakistan’s concerns over India’s conduct are longstanding, as the IWT has repeatedly been tested, and its binding and permanent nature has been internationally recognized. During the Salal Dam dispute (1970s–1980s), Pakistan raised concerns regarding design and storage, resolved bilaterally in 1978. In the Baglihar Hydropower Project (1999–2007), Pakistan objected to excessive flow manipulation. In the Kishanganga Project (2006–2013), it challenged upstream diversion before the Court of Arbitration. In the Ratle Hydropower Plant case (2017–2025 ongoing), Pakistan raised design-related objections, with disputes reviewed under treaty mechanisms.

Most recently, in 2025, India unilaterally announced it would hold the Treaty in abeyance and withheld meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission. Before all international forums, the purpose, binding force, and permanency of the Treaty have been affirmed. The unilateral suspension in 2025 constitutes a dangerous escalation, directly violating Pakistan’s treaty rights, breaching customary and treaty-based international law, and threatening transboundary water governance, human security, and regional peace. Such actions cannot be tolerated and must be addressed by all relevant international forums to uphold the integrity of the IWT and prevent destabilization in South Asia.

Violations of Customary International Law and the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention

India’s recent actions also breach principles reflected in the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, which codifies customary international law. By unilaterally accelerating upstream projects, manipulating river flows, and withholding hydrological data, India violates the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization (Article 5), undermining Pakistan’s lawful share of the Western Rivers. These actions contravene the obligation not to cause significant harm (Article 7), as deliberate interference directly threatens agriculture, food security, hydropower generation, and civilian life. Furthermore, India’s failure to notify or consult Pakistan before approving new projects breaches the duty of prior notification and consultation set out in Articles 11–19. Even independent of the IWT, these principles are binding under customary international law and form universally recognized norms governing transboundary rivers, making India’s conduct legally indefensible and actionable.

Human Rights and Environmental Implications

India’s unilateral suspension of the IWT in 2025, along with upstream projects and flow manipulation, directly threatens Pakistan’s water and food security, affecting millions. International human rights law (ICESCR, Articles 11 & 12) recognizes access to water and adequate food as fundamental rights. Environmental law, including the precautionary principle, sustainable development, and environmental impact assessment obligations affirmed by the ICJ in the Pulp Mills case, prohibits deliberate deprivation of essential resources.

Under the UN Charter (Articles 2(4), 55, 56), states must refrain from coercive actions endangering civilian welfare and promote regional stability. India’s persistent violations, compounded by climate change, seasonal water variability, and upstream interference, endanger human survival, agriculture, and ecological balance. Full compliance with the IWT, customary international water law, and human rights and environmental norms is essential to safeguard human security, regional stability, and lawful transboundary water governance.

Pakistan’s National Security Committee Declaration (April 2025)

In April 2025, Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC) declared that any attempt to violate, suspend, or undermine the IWT would be treated as an act of war. The NSC recognized that persistent water weaponization by India constitutes a direct threat to civilian survival and may invoke Pakistan’s right of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Under international law, states may defend themselves against acts threatening national survival or the lives of their population, and the deliberate manipulation of essential water resources falls within this framework if it causes widespread, imminent, and attributable harm.

Pakistan Immediate Approach to International Forums

Before considering self-defence, Pakistan must pursue a graduated, legally grounded strategy. This includes activating treaty mechanisms—the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert, or Court of Arbitration—seeking provisional measures. Pakistan should engage the World Bank, as guarantor of the IWT, to halt funding for non-compliant projects. Proceedings may also be filed before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), requesting immediate compliance. The matter should be raised at the UN Security Council and General Assembly, framing it as a threat to regional peace, human security, and climate-resilient development. Finally, Pakistan must issue a formal notice to India, documenting violations, demanding compliance, and warning that continued breaches may trigger lawful self-defence. A time-bound, coordinated approach strengthens Pakistan’s legal and moral position while demonstrating responsible adherence to international law.

Legal Notice to India: Upholding the Indus Waters Treaty under International Law

Pakistan should formally notify India that the IWT is legally binding and cannot be suspended unilaterally. India’s withholding of hydrological data, acceleration of upstream projects, and manipulation of river flows violate Articles III and IV and Annexures D and E of the Treaty, breach customary international water law—including principles of equitable utilization and the obligation not to cause significant harm under the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention—and infringe fundamental human rights to water and food under the ICESCR.

These actions also contravene environmental law norms, including the precautionary principle, sustainable development, and environmental impact assessment obligations affirmed by the ICJ. The notice should underscore that continued water weaponization threatening millions of civilians and regional stability could escalate to the level of an armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter, triggering Pakistan’s right of self-defence. Compliance with the Treaty and international law remains the only lawful path for India to prevent escalation.

Pakistan’s Right to Self-Defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter

India’s persistent violations of the IWT—including unilateral suspension, upstream storage, manipulation of river flows, and withholding hydrological data—constitute a serious breach of a binding international treaty under pacta sunt servanda (Vienna Convention, Article 26) and customary international law. As a lower-riparian state, Pakistan relies on the Western Rivers for nearly seventy percent of its agriculture, urban water supply, and hydropower. Even minor upstream interference can cause crop failures, economic loss, population displacement, and loss of life.

These actions also violate human rights obligations (ICESCR, Articles 11 & 12) and environmental law principles, including precaution, sustainable development, and environmental impact assessments. When such breaches escalate into deliberate water weaponization threatening civilian survival and national security, Pakistan is entitled to raise the matter at the UN Security Council and, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, lawfully exercise its right of self-defence, subject to necessity, proportionality, and notification. Treaty compliance and respect for international law remain the only lawful path to prevent escalation.

Conclusion: Legal Imperatives for Upholding the Indus Waters Treaty

The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) is not merely a bilateral agreement; it constitutes a binding, internationally recognized legal framework for transboundary water governance. Any unilateral erosion of the Treaty undermines Pakistan’s fundamental rights to water and food, threatens national survival, destabilizes regional peace, and erodes the authority of international law. Under Articles III and IV, and Annexures D and E of the IWT, India has incontrovertible obligations: to respect Pakistan’s exclusive rights over the Western Rivers, to refrain from interference with natural flows, and to operate all hydropower projects within legally prescribed engineering and operational limits. Article IX provides established, binding mechanisms for dispute resolution, including the Permanent Indus Commission, recourse to Neutral Experts, and the Court of Arbitration, ensuring compliance with the Treaty.

Pakistan’s legal position is firmly grounded in (IWT) treaty law, customary international water law, human rights law, environmental law, the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention, and the UN Charter. It entails immediate recourse through treaty mechanisms, formal notification to India documenting violations, and multilateral and international judicial forums. India’s unilateral suspension of the Treaty and upstream manipulations constitute a material breach, violate customary norms of equitable and reasonable utilization, and amount to coercion prohibited under international law. Upholding the IWT is therefore indispensable to protect regional stability, safeguard civilian lives, and maintain the integrity and authority of international legal norms.