Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar renewed the country’s position on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) at the Margalla Dialogue in Islamabad on 10 November 2026, saying Pakistan would safeguard its rights and oppose the weaponisation of water. The statement matters because the treaty dispute remains unresolved even after a major arbitration decision in August. For farmers, water planners, businesses and citizens, the important question is not simply whether one side has announced a position. It is what the 1960 agreement actually protects, which legal processes are still active and what the latest decisions do—and do not—change.
The short answer: the treaty remains the subject of a serious legal and diplomatic dispute. A Court of Arbitration administered through the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled on 31 August that the treaty remains in force and cannot be put into abeyance unilaterally. India rejected the tribunal’s authority and said its own position had not changed. The disagreement therefore continues; Dar’s statement is a reaffirmation of Pakistan’s policy, not a new treaty or a fresh technical ruling.
What the Indus Waters Treaty allocates
Signed at Karachi on 19 September 1960, the treaty sets out rights and obligations for the Indus river system. It groups the six main rivers into two categories:
| River group | Rivers | Basic treaty arrangement |
|---|---|---|
| Eastern rivers | Ravi, Beas and Sutlej | Waters are available for India’s unrestricted use, subject to the treaty’s specific provisions. |
| Western rivers | Indus, Jhelum and Chenab | Pakistan receives the waters India is required to let flow, while India retains specified, limited uses under treaty conditions. |
That second row is often oversimplified. The treaty does not prohibit every Indian use of the western rivers. It allows certain domestic and non-consumptive uses, limited agricultural use and hydropower generation subject to detailed rules in the agreement and its annexures. Much of the legal argument concerns whether particular project designs comply with those technical conditions.
Why a hydropower project can become an international dispute
Run-of-river hydropower plants use the movement of water to generate electricity. Their design can include a pondage area, intakes, gates and other structures that affect how water is stored or released. The IWT sets technical conditions for Indian hydropower projects on the western rivers. Pakistan has challenged aspects of the Kishenganga and Ratle projects, arguing that particular design features do not comply with the treaty.
This is not the same as saying that every dam or hydropower project is prohibited. The treaty permits specified projects, but it also sets design and operating limits. A technical disagreement about a plant’s design is therefore different from a general dispute about whether the treaty exists.
What happened after India placed the treaty in abeyance
India announced in April 2025 that it was placing the treaty in abeyance following the attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. Pakistan rejected the move and maintained that the agreement does not allow one party to suspend it unilaterally. The two countries have since taken opposing positions on the treaty’s status and on the legal processes dealing with the hydropower projects.
On 31 August 2026, the Court of Arbitration under the PCA issued an award on the treaty’s status and an order on interim measures concerning the Ratle project. It concluded that the treaty remained in force and that the grounds advanced for unilateral suspension did not justify that step. India rejected the tribunal’s jurisdiction and said it would not recognise the award. Pakistan welcomed the ruling.
Readers should understand both positions. The tribunal has issued a formal decision under the process it considers applicable; India disputes the tribunal’s authority and says its abeyance decision remains in force. Reporting only one side’s statement gives an incomplete picture of the current dispute.
What the August 2026 order actually changed
The interim measures concerning Ratle were specific. The Court of Arbitration restricted India from concreting parts of the dam wall and power-intake structure above specified levels until 90 days after the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert issues a final decision. It also ordered a reporting measure relating to the construction schedule. The tribunal did not order a blanket halt to every Indian hydropower project.
A separate Neutral Expert process is examining technical questions concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle projects. The latest timetable reported after the August decision envisages a final decision around July 2027. That is a future technical milestone, not a date on which the wider diplomatic dispute is guaranteed to end.
How the treaty is supposed to resolve disagreements
The agreement contains a dispute-resolution ladder rather than relying on political statements alone:
- Permanent Indus Commission: The two commissioners first examine questions about interpretation, application or possible breaches and try to resolve them by agreement. The treaty requires regular meetings at least once a year.
- Neutral Expert: Certain technical differences can be referred to an independent engineer acting as Neutral Expert under the treaty’s annexures.
- Negotiation and arbitration: If a matter becomes a dispute that cannot be resolved through the earlier stages, the treaty provides for government-level negotiations and, in specified circumstances, a Court of Arbitration.
The existence of these procedures is important. They are intended to provide channels for technical evidence, data, interpretation and dispute settlement even when relations between the two governments are strained.
Does the ruling guarantee Pakistan a fixed amount of water?
No. A legal decision about treaty obligations is not a guarantee that river flows will remain identical every day or every season. Actual flows are affected by rainfall, snowmelt, drought, seasonal variation, reservoir operations and other hydrological conditions. The treaty defines rights, permitted uses and obligations; it does not remove the need to monitor water availability and manage shortages inside Pakistan.
It is also inaccurate to say that the August ruling instantly restored normal cooperation. India has rejected the tribunal’s authority, and the wider diplomatic disagreement continues. The ruling is an important legal development, but its practical effect depends on compliance, the remaining technical proceedings and renewed engagement between the two countries.
Why Pakistan’s domestic water management still matters
International water rights are only one part of water security. Pakistan also needs reliable river-flow data, transparent monitoring, efficient canal operations, better maintenance of irrigation infrastructure and careful groundwater management. Water lost through leakage, poor scheduling or inefficient application cannot be recovered by a diplomatic statement.
Farmers need timely and credible information about canal rotations and local water availability. Cities need better distribution systems and conservation planning. Industries need predictable water management and clear rules for use. These domestic responsibilities remain important regardless of the outcome of the treaty dispute.
What to watch next
- Whether India and Pakistan resume practical engagement through treaty institutions.
- Progress in the Neutral Expert proceedings on Kishenganga and Ratle, including the expected 2027 decision.
- Whether the specific interim measures concerning Ratle are observed.
- Any formal change in either government’s position, rather than another political speech alone.
- Improvements in Pakistan’s own river monitoring, irrigation efficiency and water planning.
What this means for ordinary Pakistanis
The Indus Waters Treaty is not only a foreign-policy issue. It is connected to irrigation, food production, hydropower, drinking-water planning and the management of a river system on which much of Pakistan’s economy depends. But readers should avoid alarming claims that all water has been stopped or that a court ruling has automatically settled every dispute. The accurate picture is more complicated: the treaty’s legal status is contested, the PCA has ruled that it remains in force, India rejects that ruling, and technical proceedings are still under way.
Official treaty text: United Nations Treaty Series — Indus Waters Treaty 1960.