The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains one of the most significant bilateral water-sharing agreements, underpinning the livelihoods of nearly 240 million Pakistanis. Yet, India’s repeated non-compliance with treaty obligations has placed this vital framework under stress. On 29 January 2026, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) issued Procedural Order No. 19, confirming its jurisdiction and directing India to provide operational data for the Baglihar and Kishanganga hydroelectric projects. The deadline for compliance was set as 9 February 2026. India’s failure to respond or provide the required information is not merely procedural non-cooperation, it represents a clear breach of international obligations and established accountability mechanisms.
India’s Silence and Breach of Treaty Obligations
Silence in this context carries weight. The PCA specifically requested data on reservoirs, logbooks, and operational analyses, information exclusively under India’s control and essential for verifying compliance with the treaty. By withholding these critical materials, India not only violates procedural requirements but also undermines the evidentiary process established to ensure transparency and fairness. Meanwhile, Pakistan continues to provide all necessary documentation, demonstrating both compliance and institutional transparency.
The PCA has made it clear that arbitration continues irrespective of India’s participation. Under international law, particularly the principle of pacta sunt servanda, treaty obligations cannot be suspended unilaterally. India’s non-cooperation, therefore, carries negative legal implications, weakening any technical or legal claims it may assert. Furthermore, the court’s reliance on Pakistan to present evidence reinforces Pakistan’s position as a compliance-oriented treaty partner. India’s refusal to engage or provide operational data strengthens Pakistan’s case in arbitration and diminishes India’s credibility in both legal and diplomatic spheres.
Patterns of Accountability and International Implications
India’s pattern of silence is not limited to PCA directives. United Nations Special Rapporteurs raised questions in October 2025, with a response deadline of 16 December 2025. Even 55 days later, India had not replied, reflecting a sustained pattern of disregarding international accountability mechanisms. Such repeated inaction signals a political posture rather than any technical or legal justification. By contrast, Pakistan has consistently maintained transparency, institutional participation, and adherence to treaty mechanisms, emphasizing that compliance and accountability are non-negotiable elements of international law.
The stakes of this ongoing non-compliance extend far beyond procedural disputes. Any disruption to water-sharing arrangements affects agriculture, energy production, and millions of lives in Pakistan. It is therefore a matter not just of bilateral diplomacy but of international concern. Pakistan’s sustained efforts to document compliance and participate fully in PCA proceedings demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law and institutional accountability. India’s continued absence, however, invites legal consequences, reputational damage, and increased scrutiny in multilateral forums.
Ultimately, this episode underscores a fundamental principle: treaty obligations, once agreed upon, cannot be unilaterally ignored without consequences. Pakistan’s approach reinforces the integrity of the Indus Waters Treaty, highlights India’s non-compliance, and sends a clear message to the international community that transparency, legal adherence, and institutional participation are paramount. Silence, while politically expedient, does not suspend responsibility; it only strengthens the legal and moral case of the party committed to compliance.
Also See: Pakistan’s Legal Victory: Indus Waters Treaty Upheld at the UN
Pakistan, India and the Indus Waters Treaty: Compliance, Silence and Accountability
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains one of the most significant bilateral water-sharing agreements, underpinning the livelihoods of nearly 240 million Pakistanis. Yet, India’s repeated non-compliance with treaty obligations has placed this vital framework under stress. On 29 January 2026, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) issued Procedural Order No. 19, confirming its jurisdiction and directing India to provide operational data for the Baglihar and Kishanganga hydroelectric projects. The deadline for compliance was set as 9 February 2026. India’s failure to respond or provide the required information is not merely procedural non-cooperation, it represents a clear breach of international obligations and established accountability mechanisms.
India’s Silence and Breach of Treaty Obligations
Silence in this context carries weight. The PCA specifically requested data on reservoirs, logbooks, and operational analyses, information exclusively under India’s control and essential for verifying compliance with the treaty. By withholding these critical materials, India not only violates procedural requirements but also undermines the evidentiary process established to ensure transparency and fairness. Meanwhile, Pakistan continues to provide all necessary documentation, demonstrating both compliance and institutional transparency.
The PCA has made it clear that arbitration continues irrespective of India’s participation. Under international law, particularly the principle of pacta sunt servanda, treaty obligations cannot be suspended unilaterally. India’s non-cooperation, therefore, carries negative legal implications, weakening any technical or legal claims it may assert. Furthermore, the court’s reliance on Pakistan to present evidence reinforces Pakistan’s position as a compliance-oriented treaty partner. India’s refusal to engage or provide operational data strengthens Pakistan’s case in arbitration and diminishes India’s credibility in both legal and diplomatic spheres.
Patterns of Accountability and International Implications
India’s pattern of silence is not limited to PCA directives. United Nations Special Rapporteurs raised questions in October 2025, with a response deadline of 16 December 2025. Even 55 days later, India had not replied, reflecting a sustained pattern of disregarding international accountability mechanisms. Such repeated inaction signals a political posture rather than any technical or legal justification. By contrast, Pakistan has consistently maintained transparency, institutional participation, and adherence to treaty mechanisms, emphasizing that compliance and accountability are non-negotiable elements of international law.
The stakes of this ongoing non-compliance extend far beyond procedural disputes. Any disruption to water-sharing arrangements affects agriculture, energy production, and millions of lives in Pakistan. It is therefore a matter not just of bilateral diplomacy but of international concern. Pakistan’s sustained efforts to document compliance and participate fully in PCA proceedings demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law and institutional accountability. India’s continued absence, however, invites legal consequences, reputational damage, and increased scrutiny in multilateral forums.
Ultimately, this episode underscores a fundamental principle: treaty obligations, once agreed upon, cannot be unilaterally ignored without consequences. Pakistan’s approach reinforces the integrity of the Indus Waters Treaty, highlights India’s non-compliance, and sends a clear message to the international community that transparency, legal adherence, and institutional participation are paramount. Silence, while politically expedient, does not suspend responsibility; it only strengthens the legal and moral case of the party committed to compliance.
Also See: Pakistan’s Legal Victory: Indus Waters Treaty Upheld at the UN
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
Pakistan, India and the Indus Waters Treaty: Compliance, Silence and Accountability
India’s failure to provide operational data for Baglihar and Kishanganga hydro projects underscores a persistent pattern of ignoring international obligations. Pakistan’s adherence to PCA directives reinforces its position as a compliance-focused treaty partner, while India’s silence carries both legal and reputational consequences.
Afghanistan as a Regional Terrorism Hub: Cross-Border Infiltration, Spillover, and Rising Threats
Repeated cross-border attacks, systematic militant infiltration, organized criminal networks and ideological export from Afghanistan underscore how Taliban rule has transformed the country into a regional epicenter of terrorism, destabilizing neighboring states, threatening regional connectivity, endangering foreign nationals, and posing broader risks to global security.
A Context-Deficient Assessment: Structural Gaps in UNAMA’s Civilian Casualty Reporting
UNAMA’s October–December 2025 report on cross-border civilian casualties presents a narrowly framed humanitarian narrative that isolates consequences from causes, overlooking the entrenched terrorist infrastructure operating from Afghanistan and its direct role in destabilizing Pakistan.
US Backs Pakistan as Violence Escalates in Balochistan
US support for Pakistan following Balochistan violence reframes the conflict as a global counter-terrorism challenge, not a separatist struggle.
The Journey of a WWI Memorial in Islamabad
For years, the World War I memorial near Rehara village stood quietly above the surrounding land, a small but enduring reminder of local soldiers who