Lead

India and Pakistan clashed at the United Nations over the future of the Indus Waters Treaty, with New Delhi rejecting Islamabad's accusations of 'weaponising water' and insisting that cooperation cannot continue amid cross-border terrorism. The exchange came during a UN Security Council open debate on natural resources governance, as both countries sought to frame the 65-year-old water-sharing agreement in their favour.

India placed the treaty in abeyance following the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack, saying cooperation under the agreement cannot continue in the face of terrorism. Pakistan has called the move illegal, setting the stage for a diplomatic and legal confrontation over one of the most enduring agreements between the two neighbours.

Coverage comparison

The treaty, signed in 1960, is a World Bank-brokered agreement that allocates the eastern rivers of the Indus basin to India and the western rivers largely to Pakistan. Dawn's coverage focuses on the legal and diplomatic dimensions, highlighting that the treaty contains no suspension or exit clause. Article XII(4) continues it in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty between the two governments, according to reporting by Dawn.

The Hindu — World's coverage emphasises India's position, reporting that India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish, rejected Pakistan's remarks and asserted that Jammu and Kashmir 'has always been, is, and will remain' an integral and inalienable part of the country. The Hindu also notes that India was compelled to reply after Islamabad 'misused' the discussion to push a 'false narrative'.

Dawn's reporting from the UN session quotes Pakistan's First Secretary Ansar Shah, who responded to India's 'misleading statement' as a 'futile attempt to distort facts and misrepresent the situation'. Shah also cited the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which in August 2025 reaffirmed that the treaty 'remains valid, binding and fully in force, together with its dispute settlement mechanisms'.

A separate Dawn article provides historical context, noting that India paid £62 million to finance the infrastructure that made Pakistan's allocation work, and that Pakistan delayed acceptance of the 1954 World Bank proposal by four years. The article argues that the treaty's longevity is a testament to its importance, but warns that climate change is disrupting ecosystems and monsoon cycles, placing additional strain on the agreement.

Another Dawn piece examines the 'lawfare' dimension of the dispute, arguing that the legal battle is not only about who has the stronger legal case, but also about who succeeds in shaping international perception. It cites the South China Sea arbitration and the genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice as examples of how legal proceedings unfold alongside efforts to influence global opinion.

Key Claims

  • India's decision to hold the treaty in abeyance followed the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack, with New Delhi stating that cooperation cannot continue in the face of cross-border terrorism.
  • Pakistan rejects India's assertion, saying it categorically denies sustained cross-border terrorism in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Dawn reports that no Pakistani national was named in the FIR registered after the incident, which occurred within 10 minutes of the attack.
  • The treaty contains no suspension or exit clause, and Article XII(4) continues it in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty, as reported by Dawn.
  • Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the UN, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, accused India of 'weaponising water' and called the abeyance 'illegal', claiming it threatens the livelihoods of more than 240 million Pakistanis.
  • India's Permanent Representative, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, rejected Pakistan's remarks, stating that 'cooperation on the basis of mutual trust and goodwill cannot be expected when cross-border terrorism is regularly deployed as an instrument of state policy'.
  • The Permanent Court of Arbitration, in August 2025, reaffirmed that the treaty 'remains valid, binding and fully in force', according to Pakistan's First Secretary Ansar Shah.

Perspectives

Pakistan

Pakistan asserts that India's unilateral decision to hold the treaty in abeyance is illegal, as the agreement contains no provision for suspension. It denies any involvement in the Pahalgam attack and argues that India acted without proper investigation. Pakistan accuses India of 'weaponising water' and breaching international law, and cites the Permanent Court of Arbitration's reaffirmation of the treaty's validity.

India

India maintains that cross-border terrorism has eroded the basis for bilateral cooperation under the treaty, making abeyance a necessary response. It rejects Pakistan's criticism as a 'false narrative' and asserts that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of the country. India argues that cooperation under the treaty cannot be expected when terrorism is used as an instrument of state policy.