The Indus Waters Treaty, diplomatically crafted and geopolitically precarious at the same time, was established with the intervention of the World Bank in 1960 when Pakistan and India were still in their formative stages of growth. It has acted as a cornerstone of hydropolitical equilibrium between both nations.
For Pakistan, the Indus River system which includes the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus rivers, go beyond being mere bodies of water. As we are an agrarian society, it is essential for us economically. The rivers are intricate to our economy’s socio-structure, as they help sustain and nurture the livelihoods of millions as well as cultivating our fertile plains.
In this scenario, any hint suggesting that the Republic of India could reassess or change its position regarding the treaty, chiefly pertaining to developmental activities on the western rivers which are indisputably reserved for the use of Pakistan, is bound to create commotion. The treaty serves as the basis for cooperation, but in reality, it is an international treaty which has a detailed structure for conflict prevention and management. Any unilateral breach would not simply violate the treaty’s sanctity and legal validity but could also threaten a heavily managed regional balance of power.
Legally, the Indus Waters treaty is an international agreement or document having no legal boundaries, containing repercussions if violated. Pakistan, since the agreement was struck, has more than met his requirements. I see it as permissible but equally indispensable to hope that India would acknowledge and meet its obligations with the same spirit and letter.
If India opts to take steps that Pakistan views as contrary to the form and substance of the treaty, wide-ranging legal and diplomatic options are still very much available.
First, the treaty on its part provides for a staged approach to dispute resolution, starting from contact through the Permanent Indus Commission which is a joint body of experts from both countries. This forum has historically been one of the most important avenues of communication aimed at settling disputes of a different nature through good faith negotiation. Such an approach supples Pakistan with considerable advantages in resolving conflicts diplomatically. Pakistan is devoted to using this forum as the first option for conflicts.
Second, if the treaty permits the use of escalation after all bilateral avenues have failed to produce a solution, then resorting to external assistance becomes permissible. The World Bank, as one of the current signers and a neutral party, has the right to take action for the appointment of a Neutral Expert to resolve technical matters, or to more intricate matters, appoints a Court of Arbitration established by other states. Taking these steps would underline how serious the situation is and lead to unreserved conclusions of the political-legal analysis of the situation.
Third, although the treaty contains what one might call a closed system of a dispute resolution mechanism, there exists – albeit only in very few in genuine legal dominant cases contextual exceptional situations – the possibility of broader international legal procedures being activated. In cases of underlying aarguements are much more simplistic than raw established breaches of customary international law.
Pakistan’s water security issue surely requires concern. Every detriment that threatens rivers to flow during enhanced agricultural cycles will jeopardize food security, economic vitality, rural employment, and even the national consolidation bring considered a fundamental challenge. The Treaty was enacted explicitly to cope with such situations. Hence, maintaining it is tantamount to self-initiated comprehensive necessity.
The Captured Bases under Indus Water Treaty Act as defined by The Legal Guards collectively reaffirm this document’s not about water division rather peace, coexistence foundation, and region’s socio-legal respect tendered. Guaranteed allocation polygon legally perverse relationship amounts tantamount to infringement liable to renewable fierce diplomatic confrontation supported by legal exertions. Advocacy for violation of sanctioned boundaries modularly embraces multi-channels assistance including extensive diplomatic and judicial platforms.
Further anticipation indulges in inter-state negotiations, as Pakistan legitimately demands firm guarantees and unguarded dealings from the counterparty. Every professional is liable to disband boundary setting
