India hardens stand on Indus water pact

India has hardened its stance on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), refusing to acknowledge fresh directives issued by a Hague-based Court of Arbitration (CoA) and signalling that water diplomacy with Pakistan will remain suspended until “persistent cross-border hostility” comes to an end.

Government sources said New Delhi will not engage with the CoA, which it describes as an illegally constituted body, arguing that Pakistan is attempting to draw India into parallel legal proceedings outside the treaty’s agreed dispute-resolution framework. “We do not recognise the authority of this court and therefore will not respond to its communications,” a senior official said. The rejection comes after the CoA asked India to submit internal operational records from the Baglihar and Kishanganga hydroelectric projects. The court has scheduled hearings for early February and noted that India has neither filed a counter-response nor confirmed participation.

India’s position stems from its decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance on April 23, 2025, a day after a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam killed 26 civilians. New Delhi squarely blamed Pakistan-linked terror groups, marking the first time since the treaty’s signing in 1960 that India explicitly tied water cooperation to national security concerns. “The treaty is in abeyance. India is under no obligation to engage,” an official said, accusing Pakistan of using international legal forums to create the impression that bilateral mechanisms remain active. “This is about optics, not resolution.”

Under the IWT, technical disputes are meant to be addressed by a neutral expert, while legal questions may be escalated to arbitration. India maintains that the current disagreements fall strictly within the technical domain and has accused Pakistan of “forum shopping” by approaching the CoA instead of following the neutral expert route.

Despite India’s refusal, the Hague-based tribunal has continued proceedings, asserting that India’s suspension of treaty participation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction. In a January 24, 2026, order, the CoA laid out a hearing schedule and said Pakistan could proceed unilaterally if India stayed away. It also warned that India’s non-compliance could invite “adverse inferences.” New Delhi has dismissed that position outright, cautioning that any outcome reached without India’s participation would amount to a one-sided legal record rather than a binding verdict. Officials argue that the court’s attempt to merge separate dispute-resolution tracks undermines the treaty itself.

Beyond legalities, the standoff has strategic implications. Nearly 80 to 90 per cent of Pakistan’s agricultural output depends on the Indus River system, and reports suggest several reservoirs are approaching dead storage levels.

What was once a narrowly technical water-sharing arrangement has increasingly become a tool of geopolitical leverage.

“This is no longer just about hydroelectric design parameters,” a South Block official said. “It is a test case of how India recalibrates treaty obligations in the face of sustained security threats.”

India’s message since the Pahalgam attack has remained unchanged: international agreements cannot operate in a vacuum. Until Pakistan addresses what New Delhi calls “abnormal and sustained hostility,” even one of the world’s most enduring water-sharing treaties will remain effectively frozen.