By its own actions, Pakistan had forfeited the entitlement to receive hydrological data – such as vital flood forecasts and river discharge volumes – that India had regularly shared in the past for early warning and water management. Through its persistent policy of fomenting instability in the neighbourhood via proxy wars and terrorism, Pakistan has lost access to timely alerts. The absence of such information, particularly during the recent surge of the Sutlej crossing 122,000 cusecs, would have greatly aggravated the devastation.

Due to sharing of advanced data by India, Pakistan was able to anticipate or prepare for dangerous inflows, reducing evacuation lead time and exposing vulnerable communities along the Chenab, Ravi, and Sutlej to even greater risk. We all are aware that post the Pahalgam bloodshed in April 2025, India formally suspended the Indus Water Treaty, citing Pakistan’s alleged support for cross-border terrorism,and invoking changes in ground realities such as demographics and climate as a justification. India invoked the principle of rebus sic stantibus (from international customary law) under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention to defend its position of suspension under a “fundamental change of circumstances”.

Advertisement

Indian leaders, including External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, and the Ministry of External Affairs, have iterated that the Treaty remains in abeyance until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably” stops cross-border terrorism claiming legal justification under changed circumstances. Officials argue the Treaty doesn’t provide for suspension by one party alone. Pakistan has raised its concern towards any attempt to divert or block treaty-guaranteed waters. As of August 2025, Pakistan has iterated its commitment to the full implementation of the Treaty and urged India to restore its normal functioning. While we as Indians are very clear about our stance, at an international level, on 27 June 2025, the Court of Arbitration issued a “Supplemental Award on Competence,” reaffirming that it still has jurisdiction over disputes under the Treaty – even though India has suspended it.

Advertisement

The Court also stated that the Treaty does not allow unilateral........

© The Statesman