IWT: Hague-based PCA’s ruling, a victory for Pakistan

2026-02-04 - 23:36

ON 29 January 2026, The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) upheld Pakistan’s principled stance in the Indus Waters’ Western Rivers Arbitration, reaffirming its rights under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT). The ruling validated Pakistan’s position on water allocation and infrastructure development, reinforcing legal protections for its share of the western rivers. The PCA declined India’s requests for clarifications outside the award’s scope, underscoring the finality and integrity of the decision. This outcome strengthens Pakistan’s strategic leverage in water diplomacy and sets a precedent for future disputes. Needless to say, India’s recent unilateral moves to suspend the IWT such as holding it in abeyance and bypassing dispute mechanisms, threaten regional stability and violate international law principles, including pact as pacta sunt servanda that says that the “agreements must be kept”, which is a cornerstone of international law, enshrined in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention. As per the procedural order 19 of The Hague-based Court of Permanent Arbitration (PCA), the Indus Water Treaty proceedings continue despite India’s non-participation. The PCA has accordingly ordered India to share detailed operation-level records, the poundage logbooks regarding the Baglihar and the Kishanganga hydroelectric power plants with Pakistan by Feb 9, 2026. The Court further reaffirmed that the IWT obligations cannot be politically bottlenecked, thereby rejecting India’s unjust stance that the said Treaty was in abeyance. Thus, the PCA validates Pakistan’s position that the IWT requires strict adherence to the treaty parameters for water flow, rather than the Indian-held arguments regarding the best practices. Clearly it appears that the PCA has upheld its September, 2025 rulings that India must allow the unrestricted flow of water from the western rivers for Pakistan’s use. Notably, India is accused of manipulating water flows from the Chenab and Jhelum rivers, with allegations that hydroelectric projects like Baglihar and Kishanganga in Jammu & Kashmir violate the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) by restricting flows, a claim India denies while asserting its rights to “run-of-the-river” projects. Whereas, India has historically rejected the legal validity of this Court of Permanent Arbitration and has denied to participate in its proceedings. This ruling is testament to Pakistan’s commitment to resolving the disputes through diplomatic channels and underscores the importance of the IWT in ensuring the rights of both countries. The court’s decision also highlights India’s obligations under the treaty, particularly with regards to sharing the information about the hydropower projects. Needless to say, the ruling has strengthened Pakistan’s position in the arbitration process and it is likely to have significant implications for the country’s water security. Pakistan has consistently argued that India is misusing the treaty’s provisions and this ruling is expected to help address these issues. The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), brokered by the World Bank, assigned the three western rivers to Pakistan.Under the Treaty, India is conditionally permitted to build hydroelectric dams on the western rivers—Jhelum, Chenab and Indus—allocated to Pakistan, as long as they do not significantly obstruct flow. While India has constructed dams on the Jhelum and Chenab in Kashmir, these projects comply with IWT provisions. India indicated in 2025 that it would not uphold the IWT in its previous form, threatening to divert water to arid regions like Rajasthan and Kashmir, rather than allowing it to flow to Pakistan.Pakistan claims that India’s construction of hydropower projects on the western rivers violates the IWT.Pakistan frequently accuses India of “water terrorism” arguing that Indian dams and sudden silt flushing cause significant downstream shortages and ecological harm. India maintains that its projects are “run-of-the-river” as permitted by the IWT—meaning they do not store significant water—and are essential for its energy and developmental needs. The legal facts speak that Pakistan has justifiably alleged India of weaponization of water. Accusations have surfaced that India is manipulating water flows to threaten Pakistan’s food security, with officials in Islamabad calling these actions a “water weapon”. Reports indicate that India has reduced the flow of water from the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River. Indian officials have stated they will fully utilize and divert water from the western rivers for their own needs, rather than allowing it to flow into Pakistan. Under the Indus Waters Treaty, India, as the upper riparian, is permitted limited irrigation use of the western rivers. Article III and Annexure D prohibit India from storing water or constructing storage works on the western rivers, except for specific, limited purposes. Pakistan argues projects like Kishanganga violate this. India is obligated to ensure that any non-consumptive use (e.g., hydropower) does not materially alter the flow to the detriment of downstream users. Obligations to share data on water flow and notify Pakistan of new projects are frequently disputed, with Pakistan alleging delayed or insufficient information. In conclusion, India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in 2025, along with upstream water projects and flow manipulation, undermines its standing under international law. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled that India cannot hold the treaty in abeyance unilaterally, highlighting legal violations. Such actions risk damaging India’s global reputation as a rule-of-law advocate.Undeniably, The Hague-based tribunal’s claim of jurisdiction over disputes regarding hydro-electrical projects holds international legal validity, thereby affirming the tribunal’s authority to adjudicate the matter and render a binding decision. By disregarding established international agreements, India may be perceived as prioritizing short-term strategic gains over long-term diplomatic integrity, weakening trust in its commitment to multilateral frameworks. By allegedly weaponizing water, India risks its global reputation, undermines treaty credibility and faces international condemnation for violating Pakistan’s water rights. Make no mistake, If India fails to comply with the CPA’s ruling, Pakistan could indeed consider exercising its right to take “necessary countermeasures’’ under international law to protect its rights to the western rivers. —The writer, based in Pakistan, is an independent IR & International Law analyst and is member of European Consortium of Political Research including Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. (rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com)