New Delhi delivered a sharp diplomatic rebuke to Islamabad on Tuesday, 22nd September, firmly pushing back against Pakistan’s move to circulate a communication to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) regarding a recent pronouncement linked to the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The document sent to the UN body referenced an outcome from the Court of Arbitration, an entity that India dismissed as an “illegally constituted” body lacking any jurisdiction over its sovereign choices.

Addressing reporters during the weekly media briefing at the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), official spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal criticized Islamabad for twisting developments to run a targeted narrative. Jaiswal remarked: “Pakistan has a habit of misrepresenting facts and propagating falsehoods to serve its malicious propaganda.”

Challenging the legitimacy of the narrative presented by Pakistani leadership, the spokesperson took direct aim at how the pronouncement was characterized. “For starters, the so-called ruling is not a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as sought to be projected by the Pakistan minister, but by an illegally constituted court,” he stated. Emphasizing New Delhi’s longstanding view, Jaiswal noted: “We see this as just one more attempt by Pakistan at distorting the reality. Our position on this issue is very clear, and we have reiterated it several times.”

The MEA reiterated that New Delhi has steadfastly refused to recognize the tribunal, has never participated in its sessions, and has rejected all of its earlier pronouncements. According to Indian officials, the court was established in direct violation of the graded dispute-settlement framework agreed upon under the Indus Waters Treaty, rendering its pronouncements null and void with respect to India’s domestic choices or sovereign infrastructure.

Turning to security concerns, the spokesperson underlined that diplomatic engagements cannot be separated from cross-border violence. Jaiswal stressed that Pakistan must demonstrate tangible steps on the ground, pointing out: “Pakistan needs to demonstrate action and firm commitment. And it must take credible action against cross-border terrorism before the world believes it would do what it says.” Official statements from the Ministry of External Affairs on these diplomatic exchanges can be tracked via the Ministry of External Affairs Official Portal.

New Delhi’s Position on the Arbitration Forum

The genesis of the broader water arrangement dates back to 1960, when India and Pakistan signed the Indus Waters Treaty under the auspices of the World Bank to govern the division of six major rivers across the Indus basin. Under the provisions of the historic accord, India was granted unrestricted rights over the waters of the three eastern rivers—the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. In contrast, Pakistan was allocated control over approximately 80% of the total water volume through the three western rivers—the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—leaving India as an upstream riparian state facing strict constraints on storage and flow regulation. Background documentation and technical treaties are archived through the World Bank Indus Waters Treaty Overview.

Over decades, New Delhi came to regard the framework as an inherently uneven pact that subjected vital domestic power and storage initiatives to constant delays. By moving the treaty into abeyance, India effectively bypassed the continuous verification and objection steps repeatedly lodged by Pakistan, clearing the path to expedite strategic infrastructure such as the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects to meet irrigation and electricity needs in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Ladakh.

The institutional dispute worsened after Pakistan initiated arbitration proceedings at The Hague. While the forum asserted that it maintained jurisdiction, New Delhi maintained that parallel proceedings violated the treaty's structured hierarchy of conflict resolution. On 31st August 2026, the Court of Arbitration issued an award declaring that the Indus Waters Treaty remained fully operational and asserted that India could not unilaterally place the agreement in abeyance. India rejected the determination as soon as it was delivered, reiterating that a tribunal convened outside the agreed statutory framework possesses no legitimate standing over its sovereign decisions.

Why the 1960 Accord Was Frozen

The formal decision to hold the 1960 pact in abeyance was announced on April 23, 2025. This step was taken in direct response to national security considerations following a deadly terror strike in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which claimed the lives of 26 tourists.

Following the incident, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated the uncompromising principle that “blood and water cannot flow together”, signaling a fundamental shift in regional diplomacy. New Delhi made it clear that normal technical and treaty mechanisms will remain frozen until Pakistan takes comprehensive, credible, and irreversible measures to shut down cross-border terrorist networks targeting India. Indian representatives at the United Nations have echoed this fundamental stance, stressing that a nation practicing state-sponsored terrorism cannot claim the benefits of a cooperative treaty founded upon mutual goodwill and peace.

Pakistan, however, has contested this suspension. Pakistan Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar argued that the arrangement has no clause permitting either country to put it on hold on its own terms. Asserting that Islamabad views the pact as an unalterable international commitment, Dar remarked: “IWT is a binding international agreement with no provision for unilateral suspension. India cannot set aside international obligations when inconvenient.” Calling the Indian suspension a “unilateral move with no legal basis”, Islamabad pressed its case to international bodies, eventually circulating its stance to the UN Security Council.

Despite Islamabad's diplomatic appeals, New Delhi remains steadfast in its position: the tribunal remains an “illegally constituted” body, its pronouncements carry no legal force over Indian sovereignty, and the Indus Waters Treaty will remain in abeyance until Pakistan demonstrates verifiable and permanent action against terrorism.