Islamabad:
Experts have called India’s decision to suspend the swing of the Indo’s waters as a political trick and advance designed to placate the Indian public, stressing that Delhi cannot revoke or suspend unilaterally the agreement.
“India or Pakistan cannot suspend or revoke the Waters of the Indo Unilaterally, and any change in the treaty would require mutual consent,” said former Pakistan commissioner for the waters of the Indo (PCIW) Jamaat Ali Shah to the Express Tax.
He said that the Treaty of the Water of the Indo is a permanent agreement and, therefore, India would have to bring Pakistan to confidence to suspend or revoke it.
When describing the Indian announcement as nothing more than political theater, Shah said that the measure was a red sandstone destined to deceive the Indian public. He stressed that Pakistan should also issue a political response to the declaration. He pointed out that if India moved away unilaterally, he would effectively lose his rights to the rivers assigned under the treaty.
Answering a question, he clarified that the World Bank is not a guarantor of the Indo Water Treaty, but an international organism that facilitates the resolution of disputes between the two countries. It can even help establish an international court of arbitration in case of a water dispute between Pakistan and India.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Power, Awais Leghari, also reacted to the Indian announcement, saying that the “hasty and reckless suspension of India of the Indo Water Treaty is equivalent to the aquatic war, a cowardly and illegal act.”
“Each drop (of water) is our right, and we will defend it with all our forces at the legal, political and international level.”
Experts observed that any suspension of the Indo Water Treaty indicates aggression and extremism by India, noting that the agreement cannot be suspended or revorated unilaterally.
They also warned that such unilateral action would throw doubts about the credibility of all international agreements.
Emphasizing that the treaty did not include any disposition for the unilateral “suspension”, said it was designed to be of indefinite duration, and was not linked to specific events or deadlines.
According to them, both India and Pakistan are also obliged to comply with the treaty.
By stopping water flows in Pakistani rivers, India would not only violate the International Water Law but also establishing a dangerous precedent.
International law generally maintains that a country upstream (like India) has no right to block water to a country downstream (such as Pakistan), even in the absence of a formal treaty.
The experts warned that if India establishes a pattern of behavior of this type, it could establish a regional precedent with implications beyond southern Asia.
China, for example, could cite this movement to justify blocking water flows in the Brahmaputra river. Therefore, India’s action could be long -term self -taught, since countries like China will closely monitor the situation.
The Treaty of the Water of the Indo, established in 1960, clearly stipulates that any amendment must be done with the mutual consent of both parties. Having ratified the treaty, India would violate its commitments by suspending it unilaterally.
Such movement would not only contravene the mechanisms established for the resolution of disputes, such as the permanent commission of the Indo, odd experts or an arbitral tribunal, but also undermines the spirit of the agreement itself.
