India's Indus Waters Treaty Abeyance Fails on Legal and Factual Grounds

India's move to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance is fundamentally flawed on two grounds, according to legal arguments. Firstly, 'abeyance' is not a recognized status within the treaty or international law. The IWT explicitly states in Article XII(4) that it remains in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty between Pakistan and India, containing no provision for suspension or exit.

Secondly, even by India's own reasoning, the decision was premature. The facts India relies upon to justify its action are disputed and have not been examined by any competent bilateral or multilateral forum or court. The article highlights the Pahalgam incident of April 22, 2025, where India, without proper investigation or cross-border cooperation, assumed Pakistan's involvement based on an FIR that did not name any Pakistani national.

India's Ministry of Water and Power, in a letter dated April 24, 2025, asserted that "sustained cross-border terrorism by Pakistan targeting the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir" is a fact that constitutes a breach of the treaty's good faith. Pakistan vehemently denies these allegations, with its Foreign Office, prime minister, and ministers all refuting involvement in the Pahalgam incident or sustained cross-border terrorism.

The article argues that these disputed facts, including Pakistan's alleged involvement in the Pahalgam attack and the claim of sustained cross-border terrorism, are not within the purview of the Indus Waters Treaty. Article XI of the treaty confines its scope to the use of river waters and associated matters. Terrorism, regardless of its severity, is considered extraneous to this water-sharing agreement. Such allegations, it is argued, should be addressed through appropriate international forums like the UN Security Council, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the FATF, or existing mutual legal assistance regimes.