Indus Waters Treaty: Law vs. Trust in the Shadow of Terror

 Indus Waters Treaty: Law vs. Trust in the Shadow of Terror

The rivers of the Indus basin have long been seen as a symbol of shared history and cooperation between India and Pakistan. For decades, despite wars and diplomatic standoffs, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) stood as a rare example of dialogue that endured. But in recent years, that flow of trust has slowed—and now, with a fresh ruling from the Court of Arbitration in The Hague, the debate around the Treaty has taken a sharp legal turn, even as political tensions remain dangerously high.

On June 27, the Court of Arbitration issued a supplemental award that essentially reasserted its authority over the ongoing dispute, despite India having walked away from the process. India had earlier declared the proceedings illegitimate and refused to participate, insisting that the Treaty no longer holds the same meaning when one of the parties—Pakistan—continues to support cross-border terrorism. From India’s point of view, a country cannot expect cooperation over water when it refuses to build peace on land.

The core of India’s response is this: treaties like the IWT cannot exist in isolation from the larger context. When trust is eroded by bloodshed and broken promises, legal technicalities ring hollow. India has made it clear that until Pakistan takes credible action to dismantle the infrastructure of terror operating from its soil, mechanisms like the Indus Waters Treaty will remain suspended in both spirit and substance.

This isn’t just about legalities. It’s about values. It's about whether two nations can still find a way to cooperate on shared resources when one side feels perpetually under threat. Pakistan, for its part, has continued to treat the Treaty as an untouchable framework—separate from the hostilities that regularly strain the bilateral relationship. But that’s increasingly difficult to justify. Peace cannot be compartmentalized. You can’t ask for predictability in water-sharing while turning a blind eye to instability in every other aspect of the relationship.

There’s a poetic irony to this. Rivers don’t recognize borders. They follow the pull of gravity, not geopolitics. Yet the Indus and its tributaries now find themselves caught in the crosscurrents of mistrust. What was once a channel of cooperation is slowly becoming a mirror reflecting the growing chill between the two neighbours.

The way forward isn’t through courts or accusations alone—it’s through political will. Pakistan must decide whether it wants the rivers of the Indus to remain channels of peace or become symbols of confrontation. Dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to fighting terrorism must come before any technical discussion on dams or diversions.

Because at the end of the day, no ruling—no matter how well-written—can substitute for trust. And without trust, even the most carefully negotiated treaties risk drying up.