Image Source:financialexpress
In a significant move that signals a hardening of its geopolitical stance, India has categorically rejected the authority of a Hague-based arbitration court concerning a long-standing water treaty with its neighbor, Pakistan. The refusal to recognize the court’s jurisdiction marks a new chapter in the complex and often contentious history of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a landmark agreement that has governed the division of transboundary river waters for over six decades.
The dispute centers on India’s construction of hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, which are allocated to Pakistan under the IWT. While the treaty allows India to build “run-of-river” projects with certain design criteria, Pakistan has repeatedly raised objections, alleging that the projects violate the treaty and threaten its water supply.This disagreement has, over time, led to a parallel and conflicting dispute resolution process, with both countries appealing to the World Bank, the treaty’s facilitator.
The core of India’s defiance lies in its assertion that the Court of Arbitration was “illegally constituted” and that its very formation is a breach of the IWT. According to India, the treaty outlines a sequential, three-tier dispute resolution mechanism: first, through a Permanent Indus Commission; second, if a dispute remains, a “Neutral Expert”; and finally, as a last resort, a Court of Arbitration. India has long maintained that the World Bank’s decision to simultaneously activate both a Neutral Expert and a Court of Arbitration—at Pakistan’s insistence—was a violation of this structured process, creating “practical and legal challenges.”
The Geopolitical and Legal Fallout
India’s refusal to participate in the arbitration proceedings has significant geopolitical and legal implications. On one hand, it reaffirms India’s position as a sovereign power unwilling to be dictated to by external actors on matters it considers vital to its national interest. The decision sends a strong message that India will not permit a third party to interpret and potentially alter the terms of a bilateral treaty. India has also made it clear that the IWT will remain in “abeyance” until Pakistan takes “credible action against cross-border terrorism,” linking the water dispute to the larger security concerns plaguing the region.
[Newsroom staff written original, where key claims or facts are used, I’ve referenced the original sources (like Economic Times, TOI, Hindustan Times, The mint etc.) transparently.]
