“The rule of law must be upheld unequivocally if peace is to be preserved across nations.” — Kofi Annan
On May 4, 2025, amidst rising geopolitical tension in South Asia, I wrote a piece titled “Aqua-Fire: The Weaponization of Water in South Asia.” It was less a prediction than a diagnosis that in a region long haunted by partition, mistrust, and the specter of war, even rivers could be militarized. What once sustained civilization might now provoke its unraveling. Two months later, that diagnosis has been affirmed; not by pundits or politicians, but by law.
On 27 June 2025, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) delivered a Supplemental Award in the arbitration case Pakistan v. India, rebuking India’s unilateral attempt to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The Court unanimously declared that India’s declaration of the Treaty being “held in abeyance” has no legal validity, and that the Treaty remains binding and intact.
At first glance, this may seem like another dry legal ruling. But history teaches us that in the shadow of empires and egos, it is often paper, treaties, judgments, constitutions; that stands between order and collapse. And in this case, it is not just a legal victory for Pakistan, but a reassertion of the very idea that international agreements cannot be rewritten by unilateral will.
From Lifeline to Leverage
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank, was not merely an engineering document. It was a triumph of human reason over vengeance, a legal bridge over the chasm of post-Partition animosities. It gave India control of the eastern rivers and Pakistan rights over the western ones — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — the arteries of its agrarian economy.
But treaties, like all human creations, are fragile. In April 2025, following a deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, New Delhi issued a politically charged statement: the Treaty would be suspended “until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures terrorism.” The language was martial, the intent unmistakable; to transform a shared resource into a political weapon.
To the layperson, this might appear rational, after all, why continue cooperation with a hostile neighbor? But as the PCA has now ruled, international law is not conditional upon grievance, and cooperative frameworks are not tools of retribution. The Treaty does not permit unilateral suspension. Nor can a party choose to walk away mid-arbitration. This ruling reaffirms that treaties are not expressions of sentiment, but instruments of structure. They are designed precisely to function when tempers flare, not only when relations are calm.
Pakistan’s Legal Compass
For Pakistan, the PCA’s ruling is a clear vindication. In resisting the temptation to retaliate with counter-escalation, and instead invoking the mechanisms of international arbitration, it reaffirmed its faith in law over force. Its legal team’s focus on design violations of Indian hydro projects on western rivers was not only justified — it was validated.
More broadly, Pakistan’s response demonstrates the strategic value of restraint. In a region where might often overshadows right, Pakistan chose to institutionalize its protest rather than weaponize it. The ruling, therefore, is more than a verdict; it is a recognition that international order, though often slow, is not entirely illusory.
India’s Legal Miscalculation
India, on the other hand, has suffered a self-inflicted wound. By attempting to hold the Treaty in abeyance, it undermined its own long-cherished image as a responsible regional power. The PCA’s verdict has exposed the limits of muscular diplomacy when it runs afoul of treaty law and global norms.
This does not mean that India’s security concerns are irrelevant. But what the ruling makes abundantly clear is that grievances do not grant license to break rules. If every nation suspended obligations in response to provocations, the very foundation of the international system would crumble.
Yuval Noah Harari often reminds us that human cooperation rests on shared fictions — laws, nations, treaties. The Indus Waters Treaty is one such fiction, and like all fictions, it works only as long as all participants agree to believe in it. The danger is not that treaties are flawed, but that belief in them can disappear overnight. And when that belief dies, so too does the order it upholds.
Beyond Law: A Choice Between Dialogue and Devastation
The PCA has done its part. It has upheld legality. But law alone cannot ensure peace. For that, intent must match principle. On the same day as the verdict, Pakistan’s Prime Minister extended a call for renewed dialogue — not just on water, but on all issues threatening South Asia’s fragile peace.
This offer should not be seen as weakness. It is, in fact, a call to evolve. South Asia is no longer the region it was in 1960. Climate change, water scarcity, and ecological fragility are now as potent as geopolitics. In such an era, to turn rivers into weapons is not just irresponsible — it is civilizational suicide.
India and Pakistan, both inheritors of ancient wisdom and modern tragedy, face a choice: return to dialogue, or descend into a tit-for-tat of retaliations that will end not in victory, but in mutual ruin.
Conclusion: The Verdict Beneath the Verdict
The PCA’s Supplemental Award is more than a legal clarification — it is a moment of reckoning. It affirms that no nation, however aggrieved, can act as both judge and executioner in the domain of international law. It warns that unilateralism is a path to isolation, not influence.
But most importantly, it invites both India and Pakistan to ask: What kind of history do we wish to write? One where rivers bring war, or one where they sustain peace?
In the end, “Aqua-Fire” was not just a metaphor. It was a premonition. And the PCA has offered a chance to extinguish the flame before it spreads. It is now up to the leaders of South Asia to decide whether the next chapter is one of cooperation — or catastrophe.
By Ertaan Siddiqui
“The writer is a regular columnist on social issues and can be reached at seer42.blog or via email at furian240@gmail.com.”
