Pakistan Warns Indus Water Diversion Would Be “Act of War”

New York/Islamabad — Pakistani officials have escalated their rhetoric over the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in recent days, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif telling the UN General Assembly that any attempt by India to stop, impede or divert Pakistan‘s share of the Indus River waters “will be treated as an act of war,” as the two countries’ dispute over the decades-old treaty continues to intensify.

Background

The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960, divides the Indus river system between India and Pakistan, allocating the three eastern rivers — the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — for India’s use, and the three western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — for Pakistan’s use, subject to certain permitted uses by India upstream. Under the treaty, Pakistan receives roughly 80 percent of the water in the Indus river system, totaling around 16.8 crore acre-feet, while India is allocated approximately 3.3 crore acre-feet. According to Pakistani officials, India currently uses slightly more than 90 percent of its permitted share, leaving Pakistan heavily dependent on the remainder.

Tensions over the treaty have grown following India’s decision to hold the IWT in abeyance, a move Pakistan has consistently rejected as having “no legal basis whatsoever.” The Permanent Indus Commission, the joint body of Pakistani and Indian officials responsible for running the treaty day-to-day, has not met since May 2022.

Sharif’s UN Address

Addressing the General Debate of the UN General Assembly’s 81st session on September 25, Prime Minister Sharif said the shared waters of the Indus River system were the “lifeblood not only for the people of Pakistan, but for the entire region,” and stated that “water must never be weaponized. Rivers should nourish nations, not divide them.” He added that India’s claims regarding the treaty had been rejected by UN experts and the Court of Arbitration. Echoing the session’s theme of trust restoration, Sharif said that amid renewed regional hostilities, “the voice for diplomacy must echo even louder and stronger,” adding that trust would be restored when “guns are silenced and replaced by handshakes, embraces and smiles.”

Legal and Diplomatic Developments

The dispute has played out across multiple legal and diplomatic channels in recent months. In a unanimous ruling issued in late August, the five-member Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague found that the treaty “remains fully in force” and that India “must observe its obligations” under it, including those governing the design and operation of hydropower projects on rivers flowing into Pakistan. India, which does not recognize the PCA’s jurisdiction in this case, swiftly rejected the ruling, leaving Pakistan with what analysts describe as a legal and diplomatic victory whose practical impact remains to be tested.

Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar welcomed the PCA ruling. At an earlier international seminar on the treaty held in Islamabad in June, Pakistan’s Indus Waters Commissioner, Syed Mehar Ali Shah, called for “an immediate Commission meeting, general and special tours and inspections,” describing flow predictability as “part of the survival architecture of the state.” Federal Minister for Climate Change Musadik Malik, speaking at the same event, characterized the dispute as “a crisis of justice,” rather than simply one of water or climate.

Most recently, on September 30, Minister for Information and Broadcasting Attaullah Tarar reiterated Pakistan’s position, stating that the Indus Waters Treaty “cannot be unilaterally altered, rescinded, revoked or held in abeyance.” Tarar said Pakistan has approached the matter diplomatically, engaging the international community and presenting its stance, and warned that allowing any state to unilaterally hold a binding international water treaty in abeyance — despite established dispute-resolution mechanisms — could undermine transboundary water governance worldwide, with implications for other countries that rely on similar water-sharing treaties.

India’s Position

For its part, India maintains that its actions on the western rivers are consistent with treaty provisions. According to reporting on India’s current approach, the treaty’s abeyance has expanded room for New Delhi to advance work on western-river projects, though large-scale storage or diversion infrastructure remains years away given current construction timelines. India has also moved to revive the Tulbul project, a barrage below Wular Lake on the Jhelum River that was shelved in 1987 following Pakistani objections, with the Indian government stating it no longer requires Pakistan’s consent to restart the project and that a detailed project report is being prepared.

Conclusion

As both countries continue pressing their positions through legal, diplomatic and public channels, the Indus Waters Treaty dispute remains unresolved, with the Permanent Indus Commission still not having met in over four years. With Pakistan framing any water diversion as an existential threat and India continuing to advance projects on the western rivers under its abeyance position, the gap between the two countries’ legal interpretations of the treaty shows little sign of narrowing in the near term — leaving the practical consequences of the dispute, and the risk of further escalation, an open and closely watched question for the region.