Does Pakistan know why India rejects Indus Water Treaty dispute resolution mechanism?

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Tuesday said that the “enemy can’t snatch even a single drop of water” as he joined the country’s military leadership in ramping up rhetoric over the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).

His statement came after India reiterated its decision to hold the treaty’s dispute resolution process in abeyance, citing procedural objections that Islamabad has long ignored.

At the heart of the disagreement lies India’s refusal to recognise the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the ongoing dispute. The Hague-based tribunal has reportedly ruled that India must “let flow” the waters of the Western Rivers the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab for Pakistan’s unrestricted use under the treaty.

New Delhi has consistently maintained that it never accepted the World Bank’s 2022 decision to simultaneously activate two parallel processes, a neutral expert mechanism and at Pakistan’s insistence, the Court of Arbitration to adjudicate the same set of technical objections. India argued that such concurrent proceedings pose both practical and legal challenges and formally sought a reconsideration of the treaty’s dispute settlement provisions.

More from World

Will Pakistan go to war with India over the Indus Waters? Or are the threats hollow? PM Modi in Independence Day speech: 'We don't accept Indus treaty, it's neither in national interest nor in farmers’ interest'

Despite acknowledging India’s concerns, the World Bank in October 2022 appointed both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration. This, officials in New Delhi say, undermines the procedural safeguards intended by the 1960 treaty and sets a precedent that could weaken the framework for resolving future differences.

With Pakistan signalling it will press ahead with its case at the PCA and India refusing to participate in its proceedings, the stalemate over the IWT’s dispute resolution mechanism appears far from over and now, political posturing on both sides threatens to overshadow the complex legal issues at its core.