ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters Syed Muhammad Mehar Ali Shah said on Tuesday that he had written four times to his Indian counterpart since April last year — when New Delhi unilaterally placed the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance — seeking an explanation for significant fluctuations in the flow of the Chenab River, but had received no response.
Addressing a seminar in Islamabad on the legal and constitutional framework of the IWT, Shah said he had sent his latest letter only the previous night after another episode of “significant fluctuations” in the Chenab’s flow.
Under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas and Sutlej — are allocated to India, while the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — are largely allocated to Pakistan. The agreement also established mechanisms for data sharing, inspections and dispute resolution between the two countries.
Describing the fluctuating Chenab flows as more than a technical issue, Shah termed them a “strategic hazard”, stressing that data sharing was the critical line between natural risk and “manufactured vulnerability”. He said India must explain the irregular fluctuations, adding that Pakistan had repeatedly sought operational data and clarification through treaty channels but had received no reply.
“I will state this carefully and without overclaiming causation. These events required explanation and operational data, and we have been asking India through treaty channels, but there is no response from the Indian side, and no response creates a risk,” he said.
Shah added that no responsible downstream commissioner could dismiss such fluctuations as routine, arguing that these were precisely the kinds of incidents the Indus Water Commission was established to examine.
He said Pakistan had continued to fulfil its obligations under the treaty over the past year despite India holding it in abeyance. Islamabad continued to share required hydrological data, sent correspondence, requested meetings, inspections, project information and consultations under Article 9, but none of these efforts elicited a response from India.
According to Shah, India had followed a similar pattern even before placing the treaty in abeyance. He recalled that the last meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission took place in May 2022, while no general or special inspections had been conducted since then. Monthly data had remained outstanding after August 2023, and several core treaty communications had gone unanswered.
He warned that this lack of engagement increased the risk of avoidable escalation, saying hydrological information was not a diplomatic courtesy but an operational necessity because, without it, Pakistan was left to guess whether changes in river flows were caused by natural factors or upstream operations.
Pakistan has reported multiple fluctuations in Chenab River flows since India announced it was suspending its obligations under the IWT following the April 2025 attack in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam, in which 26 tourists were killed. India blamed Pakistan without presenting evidence, while Islamabad rejected the allegations and called for an independent investigation.
The treaty has remained a major point of contention since then, particularly after an Indian minister recently declared that New Delhi was working to stop the flow of water into Pakistan. Islamabad has repeatedly urged India to refrain from any unilateral manipulation of river flows and honour its treaty obligations governing projects on the Indus river system.
Calling for the restoration of treaty mechanisms, Shah said the way forward was not “abeyance, but performance”. He demanded an immediate meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission, full restoration of data sharing and the resumption of inspections and official tours.
“No unilateral abeyance, no data blackout, no diversion, no fait accompli,” he said, adding that the IWT was “a life” and that the commission must be allowed to perform its functions.
Turning to India’s hydropower projects, Shah said Pakistan did not oppose lawful hydropower development but objected to what he described as unlawful upstream control, excessive operational discretion and opaque management practices. Earlier this month, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar had criticised 17 Indian projects on the Indus system, calling them instruments of “hydro-hegemony”.
Shah alleged that India had begun reopening low-level outlets at the Salal Dam near the Marala Barrage, enabling it to empty and refill reservoirs repeatedly, thereby gaining greater control over river flows to Pakistan’s detriment.
He also expressed concern over India’s proposed Chenab-Beas Link Project, which he said would divert 1.9 million acre-feet of water from the Chenab. While a single project could be examined under Article 9 of the treaty, he argued that a cluster of accelerated projects undertaken without data sharing, inspections or commission engagement indicated a broader strategic pattern.
Referring to Article 3 of the treaty, Shah maintained that it contained no provision allowing India to divert surplus waters from the western rivers to an eastern river basin, warning that such diversions altered the fundamental balance of the agreement.
On the Salal Dam, he recalled that a 1978 bilateral agreement required India to permanently plug the dam’s outlet works. If those outlets were reopened because of a safety emergency, India was obligated to immediately notify Pakistan, hold consultations and permit site inspections, he added.
Discussing the treaty’s dispute resolution process, Shah said Article 9 established a structured mechanism beginning with bilateral engagement before moving, if necessary, to third-party adjudication without causing institutional paralysis.
He said the Court of Arbitration had effectively “reactivated” the treaty by resolving legal uncertainty surrounding India’s suspension of its obligations. Recalling that India began developing projects on the western rivers in 2000, Shah said Pakistan sought a broader interpretation of treaty provisions in 2016 and subsequently secured two arbitration awards — one in 2025 and another in May 2026.
According to Shah, the court confirmed four key principles: India’s refusal to participate could not halt proceedings; placing the treaty in abeyance did not deprive the court of jurisdiction; its awards were final and binding; and India was required to allow the western rivers to flow subject only to the treaty’s limited exceptions.
He stressed that these findings reflected not Pakistan’s political position but the treaty’s own legal interpretation through its designated court.
Earlier in his address, Shah described the IWT as an issue of national security rather than simply hydrology. He noted that the livelihoods of more than 240 million Pakistanis depended on the Indus basin, with over 80 per cent of the country’s arable land irrigated by its waters. Agriculture, he added, contributed nearly one-quarter of Pakistan’s GDP and around one-third of total employment, making water security inseparable from national security.
“Flow prediction is not a luxury of planning but part of the survival architecture of the state,” he said, describing the treaty as a conflict-prevention mechanism. While Pakistan had exercised restraint, he emphasised that water, food security, livelihoods and social stability were not negotiable, reiterating Pakistan’s declared strategic threshold against any attempt to stop or divert waters allocated to it under the treaty.
Shah further said the IWT transformed a territorial river system into a legally binding framework by defining the rights and obligations of both countries. Pakistan, he said, had rebuilt its irrigation system and national water economy around the assurance that the western rivers would continue flowing under the treaty.
“The bargain remains a bargain,” he said, stressing that the agreement was “not a favour, but a binding settlement.”
He said the treaty’s effectiveness rested on four pillars: allocation of river waters, cooperation through data sharing and inspections, the institutional role of the Permanent Indus Commission, and a structured dispute resolution mechanism. Weakening any one of these, he warned, undermined the treaty’s peace-preserving function.
“Therefore, abeyance is not a diplomatic slogan but an attempt to disable the stabilising architecture of the treaty,” he said.
Referring to Article 8, which establishes the Permanent Indus Commission, Shah said the commission existed to keep water issues from becoming sources of conflict.
He concluded by saying Pakistan was raising the issue internationally not to internationalise a bilateral dispute but to prevent the breakdown of a treaty from triggering a wider security crisis. Pakistan, he added, remained committed to protecting every drop of water it lawfully received, improving domestic water management and resisting any coercion over its treaty rights.