Islamabad:
Pakistan has formally submitted detailed concerns to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), accusing India of arming the waters of the Western rivers, a serious violation of the 1960 Indo Water Treaty (IWT), says Islamabad.
According to the 32 Supplementary Prize on the competence of the Arbitration Court, which is currently examining Pakistan’s complaint under the IWT, Islamabad has highlighted alarming changes in Indian policy since April 23, 2025.
“Pakistan argues that the” suspension “policy of India since April 23, 2025, together with public rhetoric, has fueled threats and perhaps the realization of its new approach: to use dams to manipulate or deny the subsequent communications to Pakistan,” says the prize.
Explaining what it means by “weapons”, Pakistan has outlined three main forms in which India could exercise control over the flow of Western rivers, supposedly in violation of the treaty.
“Pakistan recalls that the ‘weapon weapon’ in this context refers to three ways in which India can control the waters of the western rivers: ‘(a) the interruption of the water supply used for the irrigation downstream through the filling of the mountain pools and other reserves; (b) the opening of the dam for the damage to submit the water in the excessive volume of the excessive volume of the excessive volume of the excessive volume; and ((b) the opening of the dam for the tacitures of the dam for the sediments of the rays of the rays of the flood, and (release) the opening of the release of the presentation of the presentation of the conduct behavior, the release of the seleslate from the flooding of the flood, and (release). rivers, earth, infrastructure and people who live downstream.
On June 27, the International Court took a key determination on its authority to listen to the case of Pakistan.
The court unanimously argued: “India’s position that the treaty is maintained in ‘suspense’, however, that position can be characterized as a matter of international law, does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of Competition.”
The ruling explains even more, recognizing Pakistan’s opinion that the “suspension” position of India is not simply rhetorical, but actively undermines the obligations of the treaty.
“The International Court in its award has highlighted Pakistan’s response on India’s policy to maintain the treaty in ‘absence’.”
Citing directly from the presentation of Pakistan, the Court indicates: “The court in its order establishes that, according to Pakistan, the” rhetoric of the officials of India and the fueled clamor of the Indian media in the period since April 23 now shows that the weapons scenarios are far from being hypothetical. “
The monitoring data collected by the Pakistani authorities are also part of the Islamabad evidence before the court.
“In addition, based on its monitoring of the flow of the Western rivers in Pakistan, Pakistan argues that these ‘data show cousin facie that, from the Indian policy declaration of April 23 of India, the Indian policy statement, with intentional doubts of the variations in the inactivated flow of the water of Pakistan water’.
To support this statement, Islamabad has provided river flow data that show anomalies after April.
“In support of that statement, Pakistan provides flow flow data for Chenab when he enters Pakistan, represented as hydrograms, which Pakistan says ‘shows two significant episodes of flow variation, one at the beginning of May and the second at the end of the month and extends until June’.
The subsequent analysis of the data suggests an intentional manipulation of the water flow by India, Pakistan alleges.
“According to Pakistan, the ‘flow variations’ indicated in these hydrograms are almost undoubtedly the result of the emptying and filling of the hep tank of Baglihar, which involves both its 37.5 mm3 of its assigned stirrup as, in all the probability, a significant volume of dead storage also also’, with peaks in the concentration of sediments that indicated that the events of the events were probably reduced.
The efforts to seek clarifications of Indian counterparts, says Pakistan, were not answered.
“While the Pakistan commissioner for the Indo’s waters wrote to the India Commissioner for the Water of the Indo on May 27, 2025 in search of an explanation for these peaks, Pakistan indicates that he did not receive any response to the presentation of Pakistan’s presentation,” confirms the prize.
Pakistan’s final evaluation paints a gloomy image of India’s intentions under the appearance of “suspense.”
“Consequently, in Pakistan’s opinion, ‘it is clear that, anyone who has initially been the” suspense “policy of India is now simply covered behind which India is acting in breach of its obligation of the treaty.”
The Arbitration Court is chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy of the United States, and includes Professor Wouter Buytaert (Belgium), Professor Jeffrey P. Minda (United States), Judge Awn Shawkat al-Khasawneh (Jordan) and Dr. Donald Blackmore (Australia).
According to legal observers, the final prize on Pakistan’s long complaint about the alleged violations of the Indian Treaty, particularly in relation to design changes in the Kishenguga (KHEP) and the Hydroelectric Las Rats (RHEP), in the Western rivers.
