India gave IWT six decades of good faith; Pakistan used dispute machinery to delay projects
Washington, July 18 (IANS) India’s rejection of the latest award issued by the “illegally constituted” Hague-based Court of Arbitration (CoA) under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) as “null and void” is based on its interpretation of the treaty’s own dispute resolution procedure. While New Delhi’s objection is procedural, concerning the forum authorised under the treaty, it maintains that it remains willing to be bound by the mechanism prescribed by the treaty, a report has stated.
New Delhi, which considers that the court was improperly constituted, has refused to nominate arbitrators or participate in its proceedings and maintains that any awards issued by it are invalid from the very beginning.
“On May 15, 2026, the Court of Arbitration at The Hague issued a further award on the water storage permitted at Indian hydroelectric projects on the western rivers of the Indus basin. India rejected it as null and void, restating its position that the tribunal is illegally constituted and that the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty remains in abeyance. The response was consistent with a position New Delhi has held without deviation since April 2025: a treaty built on good faith cannot oblige one party to perform in full while the other sponsors violence against it,” a report in American magazine ‘The National Interest’ detailed.
India placed the IWT in abeyance following the heinous Pahalgam terror attack last year by Pakistan-backed terrorists that killed 26 innocent civilians.
The report noted that India’s suspension was explicitly conditional, stating it would remain in effect until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably” abandoned its support for cross-border terrorism, which New Delhi has evidenced, citing continued operations of terror groups from Pakistani territory.
On July 3, 2026, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) reaffirmed that the suspension would remain until the condition was met.
Highlighting India’s consistent adherence to the treaty, the report noted that despite wars with Pakistan in 1965, 1971, and 1999, as well as the 2001 terror attack on the Indian Parliament and the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks carried out by groups backed by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), New Delhi continued to honour its obligations under the pact.
“Water flowed uninterrupted throughout. Pakistan, for its part, used the treaty’s dispute machinery to delay Indian projects it could not otherwise halt. Objections forced a lower dam and reduced storage at Salal. The Tulbul navigation project was frozen for decades. Kishenganga, Ratle and Baglihar were each drawn into prolonged proceedings that raised costs and slowed construction. India’s case is that it has given the treaty six decades of good faith, only to be met with obstruction,” it mentioned.
Emphasising that India has suspended cooperation while continuing water supplies, the report said New Delhi has paused hydrological data-sharing, meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission, and engagement with the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism.
It noted that the move has not involved diverting, damming, or blocking the western rivers, whose waters continue to reach Pakistan.
According to the report, the measures are “calibrated” and “reversible” once New Delhi’s stated conditions are fulfilled.
“India has kept the water flowing while withholding goodwill. By contrast, Pakistan’s response has increasingly turned to threats; its defence minister has described any interference as an act of war, and its army chief warned that Indian dams could be struck with missiles. A non-forcible and reversible measure has therefore been met with the language of force, which sits uneasily with the claim that Pakistan approaches the treaty as a partner in good faith,” it highlighted.
–IANS
scor/as
