Asim Munir threatens India over Indus Waters Treaty, says will take ‘all measures’ to get Pakistan share
Pakistan's military leadership stated, during the 276th Corps Commanders' Conference in Rawalpindi, that Pakistan would take "all measures necessary" to secure its share of water under the Indus Waters Treaty.
The statement reaffirmed guidance issued by Pakistan's National Security Committee in April 2025, following the terror attack in Pahalgam, and repeated Islamabad's characterisation of any Indian move to divert treaty waters as an "act of war."
India has held the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance since April 23, 2025, pending Pakistan credibly and irrevocably ending support for cross-border terrorism.
The two countries continue to hold divergent legal positions: India frames the abeyance as a lawful countermeasure, while Pakistan characterises it as a violation of a binding international treaty.
The Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 — Structure and Institutions
The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, in Karachi, by the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan, with the World Bank as a facilitating and signatory party. It allocates the six rivers of the Indus basin between the two countries and remains one of the few India-Pakistan agreements to have survived multiple wars since signature.
Key Details
- The three "Eastern Rivers" — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — were allocated for India's unrestricted use, with an average annual flow of about 33 million acre-feet.
- The three "Western Rivers" — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — were allocated primarily to Pakistan, with an average annual flow of about 135 million acre-feet, though India retains limited rights for non-consumptive use, irrigation, and run-of-the-river hydropower on them.
- The Treaty establishes a Permanent Indus Commission, with a Commissioner from each country, to handle routine "questions" through regular exchange of data and cooperation.
- Under the Treaty, unresolved "differences" go to a Neutral Expert, while more serious "disputes" go to a Court of Arbitration — a graded dispute-resolution mechanism, with the World Bank's role limited to designating individuals to these roles when requested.
The current standoff centres on India's abeyance decision bypassing the Treaty's own dispute-resolution channels (Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert, Court of Arbitration), since the Treaty text contains no explicit provision for unilateral suspension or abeyance by either party.
Legal Basis for "Abeyance" — Law of Countermeasures
India's position that abeyance is a lawful response, rather than a treaty violation, rests on the customary international law doctrine of countermeasures, under which a state may suspend performance of certain treaty obligations in response to another state's internationally wrongful act, subject to specific conditions.
Key Details
- Valid countermeasures under customary international law must be non-forcible, proportionate to the injury suffered, directed at the responsible state, intended to induce compliance rather than punish, and reversible once the underlying wrong ends.
- India announced the abeyance on April 23, 2025, explicitly linking it to Pakistan's alleged support for cross-border terrorism following the Pahalgam attack, and stating it would continue "until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism."
- Pakistan disputes this characterisation, arguing before international forums that abeyance of a treaty without any suspension clause amounts to a serious violation of international legal obligations.
- The Treaty's Article XII provides only for termination or modification by mutual agreement through a duly ratified new treaty — a route neither country has invoked.
The Pakistani military's threat to take "all measures necessary" reflects Islamabad's continued rejection of the countermeasures framing, while India's position depends on satisfying the legal tests of proportionality and reversibility for the abeyance to remain defensible as a lawful countermeasure rather than a treaty breach.
Precedent — Prior Indus Water-Sharing Disputes
Disputes over India's run-of-the-river hydropower projects on the western rivers predate the current standoff and illustrate how the Treaty's dispute-resolution mechanisms have functioned (or fractured) in the past.
Key Details
- The Baglihar Dam dispute (on the Chenab) was referred to a Neutral Expert, who gave a ruling in 2007 substantially favouring India's design parameters.
- The Kishenganga hydropower project dispute was taken to a Court of Arbitration, which issued a final award in 2013 permitting India to divert water for power generation subject to a minimum flow requirement for Pakistan.
- Pakistan's more recent attempt to simultaneously pursue both a Neutral Expert and a Court of Arbitration process over the Kishenganga and Ratle projects has itself become a procedural dispute between the two countries, with India boycotting the Court of Arbitration process as unauthorised under the Treaty's sequential mechanism.
- The Treaty has never been terminated despite the 1965, 1971, and 1999 India-Pakistan conflicts, making the present abeyance a first-of-its-kind rupture in its 65-year history.
The Pakistani military's statement continues a pattern in which India-Pakistan differences over the Treaty have historically been routed through Neutral Expert or arbitral mechanisms — a pattern the current abeyance departs from, since India has paused engagement with the Permanent Indus Commission altogether.
- Indus Waters Treaty signed: September 19, 1960, Karachi; brokered by the World Bank.
- Eastern Rivers (India): Ravi, Beas, Sutlej — about 33 million acre-feet annual flow.
- Western Rivers (Pakistan): Indus, Jhelum, Chenab — about 135 million acre-feet annual flow.
- India placed the Treaty in abeyance on April 23, 2025, following the Pahalgam terror attack (April 2025).
- Kishenganga Court of Arbitration final award: 2013; Baglihar Neutral Expert ruling: 2007.
- The Treaty has survived the 1965, 1971, and 1999 conflicts without suspension prior to 2025.