Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Friday addressed the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) regarding the shared waters of the Indus River and the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Sharif told the Assembly that any attempt by India to stop, impede or divert Pakistan’s share of the Indus River waters “will be treated as an act of war.”
The Pakistan premier, in the 81st session of the Assembly, expressed that the shared waters of the Indus River system are the “lifeblood not only for the people of Pakistan, but for the entire region.” He further stated that India’s unilateral decision to hold the existing treaty in abeyance had “no legal basis whatsoever.”
Sharif, pointing to the recent Premanent Court of Arbitration orders, said that India’s claims had been rejected by UN experts and that India’s unilateral decision to hold the existing treaty in abeyance has no legal basis. He said:
Water must never be weaponized. Rivers should nourish nations. Not divide them. Therefore, any attempt to stop, impede or divert Pakistan’s share of the waters will be treated as an act of war. India must make no mistake about it.
The IWT is a bilateral agreement between the governments of India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank in 1960. It governs the utilization of the Indus River system—springing from the Tibetan Plateau and flowing through India into Pakistan—and outlines the rights and obligations of each in relation to the use of the water and provision for settlement.
In April 2025, following a deadly militant attack in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, the Indian government responded by “suspending” the IWT. India stated that the Treaty would remain in abeyance until Pakistan takes action against cross-border terrorism. Subsequently, it restricted the flow of water for short periods through the Baglihar and Kishanganga dams.
Pakistan, then, responded by expelling Indian military liaisons, closing its airspace to Indian craft, and stating its intention to raise the issue at international forums including the UN and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Even as relations deteriorated repeatedly over the decades, the IWT remained intact through every conflict—until the attack in Pahalgam, where gunmen opened fire on tourists, resulting in the deaths of 26 civilians.
Critics such as the Lowy Institute have argued that India’s suspension of the IWT is indicative of a growing inclination to weaponize treaties as a political tool, rather than promote stability.
The IWT also provides for the empaneling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) to resolve disputes arising from shared use of water from the Indus River system. In June 2025, the PCA issued its unanimous Supplemental Award on Competence, holding that India’s suspension of the treaty did not remove the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
New Delhi rejected the PCA’s authority, arguing that it had never recognized the tribunal’s existence in law and that, consequently, every decision it issued on the matter was null and void. The following August, the tribunal reaffirmed that it was competent and its rulings were binding despite India’s refusal to participate. India has since rejected PCA’s award concerning maximum pondage, a technical issue concerning how much water may be stored for run-of-river hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers of the Indus basin.
In his speech, Sharif thanked President Donald Trump for his diplomatic intervention when Pakistan faced “external aggression” from India last year. He also stated that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute must have a fair resolution to ensure that South Asia remains at peace.
Facts Only
* Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif addressed the UNGA regarding the Indus River and the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
* Sharif stated that any attempt by India to stop, impede, or divert Pakistan’s share of the Indus River waters would be treated as an act of war.
* The shared waters are described as the "lifeblood" for Pakistan and the entire region.
* Sharif asserted that India’s unilateral decision to hold the IWT in abeyance had no legal basis.
* Recent Premanent Court of Arbitration orders indicated that India's claims were rejected by UN experts, and the suspension lacked legal basis.
* The IWT is a bilateral agreement brokered by the World Bank in 1960, governing the use of the Indus River system.
* In April 2025, following an attack in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, India suspended the IWT and restricted water flow through the Baglihar and Kishanganga dams.
* Pakistan responded by expelling Indian military liaisons and closing its airspace to Indian craft.
* The IWT includes provisions for the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) to resolve water disputes.
* The PCA issued a Supplemental Award on Competence in June 2025, holding that India’s suspension did not remove jurisdiction.
* India rejected the PCA’s authority and subsequent awards concerning maximum pondage.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative centers on the tension between sovereign rights over shared water resources and the legal framework established for dispute resolution. The core conflict is framed as a zero-sum issue where control over water flows is equated with a state of war, elevating a technical treaty into a fundamental security matter. The pattern emerging is the strategic weaponization of international legal mechanisms—specifically the IWT and the PCA—as tools to assert political leverage rather than facilitate stability. India's actions, such as suspending the treaty and rejecting arbitration outcomes, demonstrate a calculated effort to shift the locus of dispute from bilateral negotiation to unilateral assertion. This echoes historical patterns where shared resources are utilized in asymmetric conflicts; here, water infrastructure becomes a proxy for geopolitical dominance. The repeated referencing of legal mechanisms (IWT, PCA) followed by rejection underscores a systemic challenge: whether international legal structures can effectively constrain politically motivated unilateral actions when major powers invoke threats of conflict over physical resources. The implications point toward a vulnerability where established treaties become contingent upon the political will of the parties involved, risking the erosion of predictable international order if such coercive tactics are normalized.
Bridge Questions: What precedent exists for treating shared water-based treaties as immediate preconditions for peace, and what mechanisms exist to enforce treaty obligations when one party refuses jurisdictional authority? How can dispute resolution bodies be insulated from geopolitical coercion when state actors unilaterally reject their findings? What alternative frameworks might exist that prioritize equitable resource management over coercive legal enforcement in transboundary water contexts?
Sentinel — Human
The text reads like a report summarizing high-level diplomatic statements and historical context regarding the Indus Waters Treaty dispute, indicating human journalistic synthesis of documented events.