It has been one year since India’s Pahalgam false flag operation. Using this incident as a pretext, India first targeted Pakistan’s security, and when it failed to achieve its objectives, it proceeded to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. Here come two key questions to the fore.
First, if the incident was not in fact a self-staged false flag operation, why has India still failed to present any credible evidence to Pakistan? From the outset, Pakistan has consistently maintained its willingness to cooperate in all forms of investigation, whether through joint inquiries or with the involvement of an independent third party. Yet India has shared no evidence with any party. The haste with which allegations were advanced without substantiation, followed by military action, strongly suggests it was actually an Indian false-flag operation.
Second, can India be permitted to level accusations at will and, in the absence of evidence, escalate matters to the point of conflict, disregard bilateral commitments, weaponise water in contravention of international law, and deny a downstream state its rightful share?
Under international law, transboundary water is not the exclusive possession of any single state.
The key point is that this water is not the property of India to be withheld at will. Under international law, transboundary water is not the exclusive possession of any single state. The water flowing from India into Pakistan is not legally owned by India, nor does India have the authority to unilaterally decide whether to allow its passage or block it. Pakistan holds an equal right to this water alongside India. Under no circumstances can India lawfully stop Pakistan’s water supply. This is a well-established principle of international law, whose applicability does not depend on the consent or ratification of any individual state or on bilateral agreements. Whether India acknowledges it or not, it remains bound by these legal obligations.
Pakistan is an agricultural country, and its economy is heavily dependent on water resources. Water is essential not only for drinking purposes but also for agriculture. This is therefore a matter of survival. International law has not left such critical issues to the discretion of any single state. Instead, it is governed by well-defined and established principles.
In this regard, several international frameworks apply, including the United Nations Water Convention, the Protocol on Water, the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Stockholm Declaration, the Dublin Declaration, Agenda 21, the 2016 Political Declaration, the Mar del Plata Action Plan, the Helsinki Rules, and the UNECE Water Convention, among others, many of which also reflect norms of customary international law. This means that compliance with these principles is binding on all states, regardless of whether they formally accept them or not.
Is the water flowing from India its exclusive property, to be released or withheld at its sole discretion? Under the UN Water Convention, the answer is clearly no. India is under an obligation to ensure the natural flow of water to Pakistan.
The question of how much water must be allowed is also clearly defined. It is based on three core principles: first, there must be no shortage of drinking water in the downstream state, in this case Pakistan; second, its agricultural needs must not be adversely affected; and third, its environment must not be harmed. Under the Water Convention, the volume of water must be sufficient to safeguard all three of these essential requirements. International law leaves no room for unilateral withdrawal from these obligations or responsibilities.
Stephen McCaffrey, author of *The Law of International Watercourses* and a leading authority in international law, emphasises that regardless of a state’s economic interests, it cannot deprive another country of access to water. Similarly, the Mar del Plata Action Plan identifies water as a fundamental human need and considers its obstruction a grave violation. The Dublin Declaration also affirms water as a basic human necessity.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees every individual the right to an adequate standard of living, a principle that is further reinforced by the United Nations Charter. In an agricultural society, the very notion of a dignified standard of living is inseparable from access to water. Any attempt to block water would therefore amount to a violation of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter.
Moreover, such an act would also contravene various resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly that recognise water as a fundamental human right. In its July 2010 resolution, the General Assembly not only affirmed water as a basic human right but also outlined the minimum daily water requirement for an individual.
Pakistan is a peaceful country and a consistent advocate of diplomacy and stability. Even today, its diplomatic efforts remain focused on preventing escalation between Iran and the United States, a role that has been widely acknowledged internationally. Pakistan has also continuously pursued constructive relations with India. In this spirit, it offered full cooperation in investigating the Pahalgam incident. However, India neither accepted this offer nor shared any evidence with Pakistan, and instead, using the incident as a pretext, proceeded to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. In doing so, it has not only placed South Asian peace at risk but has also undermined the broader framework of international law.
It is essential for the international community to recognise how international legal norms are being disregarded by Hindutva and how such actions endanger the lives of millions across South Asia. This approach risks triggering a severe humanitarian crisis, as water remains Pakistan’s lifeline. Pakistan has already made it clear that any attempt to block or divert its rightful share of water would be regarded as an act of war.
The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood