Pakistan's ambassador to US urges India to comply with Indus Waters Treaty, rescind unilateral measures

Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States Rizwan Saeed Sheikh called on India to honour the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and rescind its unilateral measures against the agreement.

In an article published by Newsweek, Sheikh responded to a piece by India's Ambassador to the US Vinay Kwatra, titled A Treaty Pakistan Destroyed Long Before India Set It Aside.

Sheikh said Kwatra sought to portray the IWT "as an asymmetric arrangement that conferred undue concessions, while alleging that Pakistan has obstructed India’s hydropower development on Western Rivers, clearly following the tradition of fabrication and obfuscation, distorting account of the Treaty’s history, structure and purpose."

According to Sheikh, India has continued to advance the same narrative "with increasing frequency" since its unlawful pronouncement in April 2025 to hold the Treaty “in abeyance.” The ambassador noted that India "appears intended to retrospectively justify a unilateral action that finds no basis either in the Treaty itself or in international law."

Sheikh said that the IWT was a binding international agreement concluded after decade-long negotiations. "It was neither an act of Indian generosity nor a concession to Pakistan," Sheikh wrote, arguing that instead, it was "a carefully negotiated legal settlement designed to replace upstream discretion with clearly defined and binding rights and obligations, thereby providing certainty, predictability and stability in the management of the Indus River System."

Read: IWT and the 'hydraulic civilisation' argument

He further explained that under the IWT, India secured the use of the rivers Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej, while Pakistan’s rights over the waters of Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab were "protected through a comprehensive legal regime."

He argued that for its part, Pakistan "relinquished its historic dependence on Eastern Rivers and undertook extensive replacement works to reconfigure its irrigation system in accordance with the new allocation."

However, he wrote that to "describe this arrangement as inherently unfair is to disregard circumstances in which the Treaty was negotiated and the carefully calibrated balance embodied in its provisions." Noting that the limitations governing India's uses of its three rivers reflected the "hydrological realities" of an upstream-downstream relationship, Sheikh wrote that they were essential in protecting the rights and water security of the downstream state.

"They were integral to the bargain on which IWT was concluded and have contributed to its durability for six decades," he said.

He added that it was also a misplaced assertion that Pakistan had sought to impede India’s hydropower development. "The Treaty expressly permits India to construct run-of-river hydroelectric plants on Western Rivers, subject to Treaty-prescribed design and operational criteria," Sheikh wrote.

The ambassador argued that Islamabad's "recourse to dispute-settlement mechanisms under Article IX is not obstruction but the exercise of rights expressly afforded by the Treaty," adding that any questions regarding pondage, spillways, outlets, intakes, freeboard and operating criteria went directly to safeguards negotiated by the two sides.

"Seeking clarification, neutral determination or arbitration on such matters constitutes the implementation of IWT, not its abuse," Sheikh noted.

Read More: India's water intransigence

He added further that India could not "reasonably claim the benefit of the Treaty's provisions permitting hydropower development while dismissing the technical limitations and dispute-resolution procedures that form part of the same negotiated framework."

According to the ambassador, the Court of Arbitration had "reaffirmed the continuing validity and operation of the Treaty and the binding nature of its safeguards." Through its awards, which included the Supplemental Award of May 2026, it reinforced the principle that hydroelectric projects on Western Rivers must conform to IWT's prescribed limitations.

"Any unrelated political or security allegations cannot absolve a state of its obligations under a binding international agreement," Sheikh said, adding, "Baseless allegations of terrorism or other bilateral disputes cannot create a unilateral right to suspend, disregard or rewrite the IWT."

According to the ambassador, the legal position was clear: "the IWT contains no provision allowing either party unilaterally to suspend it, place it 'in abeyance,' or terminate it." He noted that Article XII provided that the IWT should continue in force until terminated "by a duly ratified treaty concluded between the two governments."

Due to this, Sheikh said, India's unilateral announcement "cannot alter the Treaty's legal status or extinguish the rights and obligations arising under it. The Treaty remains valid, operative and binding."

Further, he noted that the IWT had, for over six decades, "provided a rules-based framework for managing one of the world's most important transboundary river systems," with its resilience resting not on political goodwill, but on the fact that it "replaced unilateral discretion with binding rules and procedures for resolving disputes."

Also Read: Chorus on India’s IWT violations is louder

"Undermining a time-tested water treaty, with a malicious aim of weaponising transboundary rivers, would not only reduce certainty and predictability, but also pose a serious threat to peace and stability in an already volatile region," the ambassador warned.

He also noted Pakistan's commitment to the IWT and to its "faithful implementation in letter and spirit," calling for India to "rescind its unilateral measures, return to full compliance with its Treaty obligations, and engage through the institutional and dispute-resolution mechanisms established under the Treaty."

Sheikh also wrote that Pakistan would continue to "defend its legitimate rights under the Treaty through all available means," noting that for a country whose agriculture, food security, livelihoods and economic well-being "are intrinsically connected with the Indus Basin, the issue is not one of political advantage."

Instead, he wrote, "It concerns water security and well-being of 250 million Pakistanis and the integrity of a binding international agreement that has helped preserve stability in South Asia for generations."