During his speech at the United Nations General Debate in New York on Friday, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif strongly criticised India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance.

He described India’s move as a unilateral and illegal violation of the treaty and international law, accusing New Delhi of denying Pakistani citizens their rightful access to water. In his words, any breach of the treaty amounted to “an act of war,” reflecting Islamabad’s sharp stance on the matter.

Notably, Shehbaz Sharif made no mention of Pakistan’s obligations to take effective action against terrorism emanating from its soil—an issue that India has directly linked to the suspension of the treaty. The silence on counter-terror measures stood in stark contrast to India’s repeated demands that Islamabad act decisively following the Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 civilians on April 22, 2025. This omission highlighted Pakistan’s unwillingness to address India’s core concerns at the global stage.

Alongside the water dispute, Shehbaz Sharif again raised the Kashmir issue, asserting that Pakistan stood firmly with the people of Jammu & Kashmir. He described India’s administration in Kashmir as “tyranny” and claimed that Pakistan would continue to lend political and moral support to Kashmiri separatist aspirations. His remarks reflected Pakistan’s consistent tactic of internationalising the Kashmir issue despite India’s insistence that it is strictly a bilateral matter.

India’s unprecedented decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty came after the Pahalgam attack, which New Delhi directly linked to cross-border terrorism supported by Pakistan. India argued that continued water-sharing cooperation could not coexist with persistent hostile actions and terrorism flowing from Pakistani soil. By linking resumption of the treaty to verifiable cessation of terrorism, India signalled its intent to use every diplomatic, political, and economic lever to hold Islamabad accountable.

The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in September 1960 with the World Bank as guarantor, has long been hailed as a rare example of cooperation between India and Pakistan despite successive wars. It allocated the waters of the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej to India, while the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab were reserved for Pakistan. While the arrangement has survived decades of conflict, critics in India have often argued that the agreement unfairly restricted New Delhi’s rights over river waters. The present suspension marks the sharpest challenge yet to the treaty’s longevity.

India dismissed Pakistan’s claims at the UN as a deliberate attempt to deflect from its support to terrorism. New Delhi pointed to Islamabad’s repeated manipulation of international arbitration mechanisms on river projects as a tactic to stall development while avoiding accountability on terror financing and infiltration.

By invoking sovereign rights under international law, India maintained that its suspension of the treaty was a legitimate countermeasure, not a violation, and emphasised that cooperation can resume only after Pakistan demonstrates concrete progress in dismantling terror infrastructure.

The row over the Indus Waters Treaty adds a new dimension to already strained India-Pakistan ties. With water resources critical to Pakistan’s agriculture-dependent economy and India signaling its readiness to leverage these resources as part of its strategic toolkit, the dispute risks escalating tensions further. At the same time, India’s move challenges the decades-old framework of hydrological cooperation, raising broader questions on the role of international treaties in contexts where terrorism and asymmetric conflict dominate bilateral relations.

Based On ANI Report