Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has warned that every drop of Pakistan’s water is a “red line”. He could hardly be more right. Speaking on the eve of Independence Day, the prime minister reiterated that Pakistan wants peace, but that its desire for peace should never be mistaken for weakness. This is the balance Islamabad must maintain as India continues to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. The message should be clear: Pakistan does not seek confrontation, but neither can it remain passive when an issue as fundamental as water security is at stake.
Signed in 1960 after years of negotiations facilitated by the World Bank, the Indus Waters Treaty has long been regarded as one of the more durable examples of international cooperation. It has survived repeated crises, diplomatic breakdowns and wars between India and Pakistan. The treaty established a framework for sharing the waters of the Indus river system, allocating the western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — primarily for Pakistan’s use, while giving India rights over the eastern rivers. It also created mechanisms for information-sharing and the settlement of disputes.
That history makes the present crisis particularly troubling. Treaties are not political favours that one country can extend or withdraw according to the state of bilateral relations. They are legal commitments intended to provide stability precisely when relations between states are strained. The World Bank has described the Indus Waters Treaty as an important framework for cooperation between India and Pakistan that has survived periods of intense tension, including armed conflict.
India’s decision to place the treaty in abeyance following the Pahalgam attack has therefore raised questions that go well beyond the immediate dispute between the two countries. New Delhi blamed Pakistan for the attack, while Islamabad categorically denied involvement. Whatever the circumstances surrounding the confrontation, water agreements should not become instruments of retaliation. Turning control over a shared river system into a tool of political pressure would establish a dangerous precedent, particularly between two nuclear-armed neighbours.
For Pakistan, the stakes could hardly be higher. The Indus river system is central to the country’s agriculture, food security, livelihoods and broader economy. Water is fundamentally different from most other resources: there is no practical substitute for it. A shortage of energy can, in time, be addressed through alternative sources. Food imports can provide temporary relief. But a sustained disruption to the water system would affect agriculture, drinking water, ecosystems and millions of livelihoods simultaneously.
This is why the issue cannot be reduced to another chapter in the long-running India-Pakistan dispute. If water becomes hostage to political relations, every future crisis could carry an additional and potentially devastating dimension. The principle that existing international agreements must be respected becomes particularly important when the countries involved are already locked in a cycle of mistrust.
Pakistan also has a strong interest in using the treaty’s own legal mechanisms rather than allowing the dispute to become purely political. The treaty provides distinct procedures for questions, differences and disputes, including the use of a Neutral Expert and a Court of Arbitration. The World Bank’s own account of the treaty makes clear that these mechanisms were specifically designed to address disagreements between the two sides.
Recent proceedings have reinforced the importance of those mechanisms. The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s record shows that the Court of Arbitration issued an award on the interpretation of the treaty in August 2025 and a supplemental award concerning maximum pondage in May 2026. Pakistan has welcomed the latest award and maintained that the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanisms remain the appropriate avenue for protecting its rights.
India’s rejection of proceedings it does not accept does not, however, make the underlying legal questions disappear. Nor should either side assume that political declarations can replace the treaty’s established procedures. The more prudent course for both countries is to use the mechanisms that were painstakingly negotiated precisely to prevent disagreements over water from becoming broader conflicts.
Pakistan, for its part, must combine firmness with diplomacy. Drawing a red line over water security is justified, but rhetoric alone will not protect the country’s interests. Islamabad should continue to pursue every available diplomatic and legal avenue, engage international institutions where appropriate and insist on compliance with the treaty framework.
At the same time, Pakistan needs to confront an uncomfortable reality: India is not its only water problem. Climate change is altering rainfall patterns and increasing pressure on already stressed water resources. Pollution, salinity, groundwater depletion, inefficient irrigation and ageing infrastructure are compounding the challenge. Water losses across the agricultural and urban systems remain a major concern. The country cannot demand that others respect its water rights while failing to make the best possible use of the water it already receives.
That means investment in storage, conservation, modern irrigation, groundwater management and better water governance is not optional. Pakistan must also improve coordination between the federal and provincial authorities and build a long-term national strategy for water security. Every drop saved today could become crucial tomorrow.
The Indus Waters Treaty was created on the understanding that water disputes between India and Pakistan could be managed through rules, institutions and cooperation even when political relations were poor. Its survival for more than six decades demonstrates the value of that approach. It would be a grave mistake to allow the treaty to become another casualty of the latest cycle of hostility.
Pakistan should continue to make clear that it seeks neither war nor confrontation. But peace cannot mean accepting vulnerability on an issue fundamental to national survival. Water must remain governed by international law and established agreements, not by the political temperature of the day. If every drop is indeed a red line, then Pakistan’s task is not merely to draw that line — it is to defend its water security through diplomacy, law, sound policy and responsible management at home.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
