The Indus Waters Treaty treaty was signed in September 1960 to regulate the use and sharing of the Indus river system between India and Pakistan. It was at the time when the matter was refereed to for the pre-arbitration and subsequent sub judication of the interim adjudication.
It is not fair on the part of India to say that the Hague Court has no jurisdiction. on the same basis India can not reject subjudice case at the Hague Court’s jurisdiction over the Indus Waters Treaty ruling.
India on Monday rejected an award issued by the Court of Arbitration in The Hague over the Indus Waters Treaty, saying the body was “illegally constituted” and has no jurisdiction over India’s sovereign decisions.
Where the same line of internal Indian sovereignty was applied when the extrajudicial powers of the Indian Constitutional were amended in reducing the Statehood of the Kashmir jurisdiction was just reduced and the Art 390 was repealed to restrain basic needs to the Muslim populated Jammu and Kashmir.
The Indian Parliament had no jurisdiction to pass legislation over the specially notified provisions within the Constitutional provisions of Sovereignty like amending various laws including reducing the crucial provisions of choosing Chief Election commissioner and the members of the Election Commissioners of India.
By removal of the Chief Justice of India from the preview of the CEC’s selection committee then consisted of the Primer Minister, Leader of the opposition in parliament in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India to be instrumental in the protection of factual governance of the Union of India in the matters of her ensuring sovereign powers.
In a premeditated move the then law was amended and the office of the CJI was removed and the office of an Union Minister was inducted along with the PM and the Leader of Opposition.
After the removal of the office of the CJI from the purview of the CEC selection committee members, a majority of protection of Indian benignity has been reduced to two governing ministers (PM and A cabinet minister in this case Union Home Minister Amit Shah) the CEC has become a tool in the hands of the Union Government. And law will continue to suffer until the of the Union of India legitimate and factual sovereign powers are restored.
It is now understood that Indian PM Narendra Modi had a intention to mislead the globe against the broad thinking of freedom fighters of then Indian combine nation. When there was his friend PM Nawaz Shareef’s he called him and had Pakistan Biyyani in Pakistan soil, there was an agenda of paying dramatic tributes to father of the Pakisatan Mohammed Ali Zinnah to win over then PM of Pakistan Nawaz Shareef. For that reason the Deputy Prime Minister LK Advany too paid similar tribute to Jinnah earlier.
Many more questions will arise, it is necessary to ratify the mistakes done by one person abusing the law dividing into three UTs in the domain of India subsequent to accession of Jammy and Kashmir behind the jurisdiction of the dual Jammu & Kashmir and Indian States Constitution.
But combined States of India and Pakistan in the matters of the external affairs, the currency, the defense, the water resources, the communication etc., These are issues concerning to the legacy of India and Pakistan that has to be shared for proportional distribution of all power and assets between two nations after both we both got mutually separated in the good faith.
Unfortunately the forefathers the members of the RSS, the Hindu Mahasabha were there to guide and support MA Jinnah to curve then AkhandBharath into two nations by complying two nation theory.
The BJP wanted the non locals to purchase immovable assets and have a say within the domicile of the Jammy Kashmir in all the matters. The Kashmirs were happy even prior to making 3 UTs because of the reasons that our own people resolved all the issues including specially notified issues within the Constitution of India
The ruling relates to interim measures and the status of the Indus Waters Treaty, which governs the sharing of the Indus river system between India and Pakistan If India does not recognize the basic needs of its counterparts how India can claim itself as the vishwaguru.
It is necessary to invoke Raaj Dharma in provision of the natural justice to the subjects of then undivided Akhand Bharath, now governed by these two separate States on the subjects other than the subjects arose subsequent to division of India, the duty rest upon the subsidiary nation.
Whether it right or wrong on the part of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to say that the Court of Arbitration was set up by the World Bank in violation of the terms of the treaty. To claim vishwaguru status, India should recognize the legal existence of the international legal body in fact on the subjects factually originated from mother India. India can not reject its nation's bifurcation proceedings or its earlier commitment prior to the pronouncements of the international law of arbitration.
India should have appeared through the international lawyers who are capable of defending the nation before the Court of Arbitration and by refusal to take any notice of its earlier decisions, if not it amounts to acceptance of whatever its fallout may be.
According to the government, the court has no authority to rule on India’s sovereign decisions. How is that two nations are subject matters of the common treaty. It can not say that any present or future pronouncements by the body of arbitration over the then common matters would have effect on India’s further actions, including future projects being undertaken by both such countries.
India’s decision to keep Indus Waters Treaty remains in abeyance
is not appreciated when India claims vishwaguru status. The circumstances demand India raise above its blessed standards and take appropriate other steps excluding passage of Indus waters to the subjects of erstwhile undivided Akhand Bharath as the water is the naturally blessed to all hymen beings.
The treaty was signed in September 1960 to regulate the use and sharing of the Indus river system between India and Pakistan.
India placed the treaty in abeyance after the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 people. New Delhi had said that water cooperation could not continue while cross-border terrorism remained a concern. In nature, it can not be called water cooperation but duty to allow passage of their share of waters.
The latest statement is in line with India’s earlier position that the Court of Arbitration was not validly constituted under the treaty and that its decisions have no bearing on India’s actions, yes India due to change of mind set attitude of Adharma Rulers, India while following Adharma Path claiming itself on Dharma not understood claim as the Vishwaguru.
In June, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India had suspended the treaty and would keep it in abeyance until Pakistan takes concrete steps to end cross-border terrorism.
Yes the Pakistan Establishment should stop sending state sponsored actors into Indian territory to do away its subjects. It is utterly not fair to say we suspended the Indus Waters Treaty but kept it in abeyance until Pakistan completely stops cross-border terrorism, while responding to Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry during a weekly media briefing in New Delhi. Pakistan should know it cab be India's younger brother if it looks forward for India’s blessings.
India is not like Pakistan to continue tensions between the two neighboring countries, with the Indus Waters Treaty becoming a key point of contention in bilateral relations.
Pakistan should restrain from giving IWT threats to India. Recently Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Pakistan Independence day unnecessarily distanced itself from India and warned that Islamabad would not compromise on the water issue, calling it a “red line” which is unfortunate.
The 1960 treaty was originally signed in a spirit of goodwill and friendship, but Pakistan’s conduct over five decades had undermined that relationship.
India continued to honour the treaty despite what India is an imbalance in allocation of water, while India receiving the eastern rivers and Pakistan the western rivers.
The treaty is in abeyance after the Pahalgam terror attack, exercising its rights under international law until Pakistan credibly ends its support for cross-border terrorism. He cited several past terror attacks and accused Pakistan of obstructing Indian hydro power projects through delays and opposition.
He also rejected Pakistan’s portrayal of India as a “water aggressor”, arguing that the country’s water problems largely stem from domestic mismanagement and poor water productivity.
Any meaningful bilateral engagement would require Pakistan to dismantle its terror infrastructure first, reiterating India’s position that “terror and talks” and “water and blood” cannot go together.
