By Uzma Ehtasham
The International Court of Arbitration has once again placed the spotlight on India’s conduct under the Indus Waters Treaty, directing New Delhi to submit operational records of its hydropower projects on Pakistani rivers. The court’s order, requiring India to provide the logbooks of the Baglihar and Kishanganga projects by 9 February 2026, comes with a warning: failure to comply will necessitate a formal explanation. Pakistan, for its part, has been asked to specify by 2 February which documents it is seeking. Hearings on the merits of the case are scheduled in The Hague for 2 and 3 February. At first glance, the arbitration may seem a technical matter of engineers, turbines, and water flow.
However, the reality is far more profound. The Indus River system is the lifeblood of Pakistan’s agriculture, supporting millions of livelihoods, sustaining food security, and shaping the economic fortunes of entire provinces. Any attempt to manipulate the flow of water is not a mere technical oversight; it is a direct challenge to the well-being of a nation. Projects such as Baglihar and Kishanganga therefore represent more than infrastructure—they are instruments whose operation carries serious geopolitical consequences. Pakistan has long argued that India’s approach to the western rivers reflects a pattern of strategic leverage. New Delhi’s insistence on constructing and operating multiple hydropower projects without transparent cooperation has raised consistent concerns about water security.
The insistence of the arbitration court that India produce operational logbooks is a recognition of the seriousness of these concerns. It is a demand not for abstract technical data, but for evidence that projects are being managed within the limits agreed under the treaty. The court’s move signals that the issue is not one of domestic engineering discretion; it is a matter of international law, equity, and the predictable flow of resources on which millions depend. Legal clarity supports Pakistan’s position. The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960, is one of the most robust international water-sharing agreements in existence. Under its terms, the waters of the western rivers—the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—are allocated to Pakistan, while India’s use is carefully circumscribed.
Yet, in recent years, India’s stance has been selective. The country has at times dismissed the arbitration court’s authority, arguing that it never recognized the court’s jurisdiction. Such claims strike at the very foundation of international justice, challenging the notion that agreements voluntarily entered into by sovereign states can be enforced. For the global community, this is more than a bilateral dispute; it is a test of whether international law retains credibility when confronted with power asymmetries. India’s conduct in this matter has followed a predictable pattern. Decisions favorable to its interests are welcomed; those that require restraint or transparency are resisted. This approach undermines both trust and the principles of equitable cooperation that underlie treaties.
Hundreds of dams, both large and small, have been constructed along the western rivers in recent decades. Whether these are justified purely on technical grounds or form part of a broader strategy to exert influence over downstream flows remains a matter of concern for Pakistan and observers alike. In the eyes of many analysts, this pattern represents more than engineering oversight—it is a form of water coercion that has tangible consequences for millions of people. The international dimension cannot be overstated. Water disputes are no longer merely regional conflicts; they are tests of the efficacy of global institutions. If India is permitted to defy the arbitration process without consequence, the implications extend far beyond the Indus basin.
Treaties around the world rely on mutual trust, transparency, and enforceability. Allowing a powerful state to circumvent its obligations sets a dangerous precedent, one that could erode faith in agreements designed to prevent conflict over natural resources. At its heart, this dispute is about life. Water sustains agriculture, powers industry, and nourishes communities. Using it as a tool of political leverage threatens not only national economies but also human lives. For Pakistan, the stakes are existential: the predictability of river flows determines crop yields, food security, and the livelihoods of millions. The stakes for the international system are similarly high. If multilateral frameworks are weakened by selective compliance, the notion of enforceable international law itself is called into question.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
