'Trust can't flow when terror does': Ex-envoy justifies India's hard line on Indus Treaty

Former Indian envoy to the United Nations, Syed Akbaruddin, has warned that the recent supplemental award by the Court of Arbitration in The Hague has reignited serious questions about the future of the Indus Waters Treaty, placing India's strategic interests at the heart of the evolving dispute.

"Rivers obey gravity, not flags. Yet, as the snow-fed waters of the Indus system flow silently across borders, the roar of geopolitics now echoes louder than ever," Akbaruddin wrote in an opinion piece in The Indian Express.

Akbaruddin underscored that the June 27 ruling-delivered in India’s absence-rejected India’s suspension of the Treaty and reaffirmed the tribunal’s jurisdiction over Pakistan's complaints. He noted that India responded by calling the court "illegal," the proceedings "irrelevant," and maintaining that the Treaty remains in abeyance "until Pakistan abjures cross-border terrorism."

The former envoy argued that the dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty is no longer confined to water allocation. "The simmering dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty is not just about water. It is about sovereignty, security, and a Treaty that has withstood conflicts for over six decades but now strains under the pressures of asymmetric warfare."

He defended India's decision to freeze mechanisms under the Treaty following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed dozens of Indians, allegedly carried out by Pakistan-based terrorists. "India did not act lightly. It placed the Treaty in abeyance after Pakistan-based terrorists killed dozens of Indians in a brazen attack in Pahalgam."

According to him, the tribunal’s ruling may carry legal weight but ignores the broader political and security context. "The Hague tribunal’s award may be procedurally valid. It reflects the logic of legal permanence… But the law cannot be blind to context,” he wrote. "When blood stains the snow of the Pir Panjal, the abstractions of international law ring hollow."

Akbaruddin maintained that India has not violated Pakistan’s water rights, nor has it stopped flows under the Treaty. "Instead, it has frozen the instruments of cooperation as a wake-up call. The message is stark: Treaties are built on trust, and trust cannot flow when terror does."

He noted that while water has long been treated as a commodity above politics, Pakistan’s actions have altered that equation. "Water is often called the last soft commodity… But Pakistan politicised water by sheltering groups that target Indian soldiers and civilians. India’s decision to place the Treaty in abeyance is not vengeance. It is a consequence."

Outlining possible future paths for India, Akbaruddin said Delhi could continue to boycott arbitration to deny its legitimacy, legally withdraw from the Treaty, or fully exploit its permissible rights under the existing framework. He also suggested conditional cooperation—resuming engagement only if Pakistan acts credibly against terror groups. "Each course demands a careful balance of resolve and restraint that matches the stakes."

He cited examples of river tensions in other regions — including Egypt's threats over Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam and Southeast Asian disputes over the Mekong — as cautionary tales. "These flashpoints offer ample proof that there are no outright winners. While geography sets the opening bid, legitimacy and transparency determine whether power becomes a lasting advantage or an enduring grievance."

Calling for a dual approach, Akbaruddin concluded that India should both accelerate its infrastructure to utilise its share of Indus waters and build a diplomatic framework that links re-engagement with Pakistan to concrete action on terror. "India must also speak to the world with clarity. It is not undermining peace. It is demanding that peace be real. It is not holding water hostage. It is refusing to be hostage to hypocrisy," he wrote.

"The Indus is a lifeline. For Pakistan, yes. But also for India, not just as a source of water, but as a symbol of resilience, restraint, and rights. India’s policy must reflect that duality. It must be hard-headed in execution but clear-eyed in intention."