As summer temperatures rise, the pressure on 'field marshal's Rawalpindi will be mounting .....
A game is on to make India 'relent' even as the West plays along Pakistan's latest peacemaker farce.
The attack at Baisaran valley in Pahalagm on April 22 last year saw tourists being segregated on the basis of religion and shot dead at point-blank range. The religious nature of the attack came after dog-whistling by Pakistani Army chief Asim Munir and when a sense of normalcy returned to Jammu and Kashmir.
The coordinated attempt at painting Pakistan as a victim of India's IWT suspension comes even as the former tries to project an image of a peacemaker by mediating in the Iran-US war. A pattern of literature has emerged across Pakistani media and global think-tanks and platforms in recent weeks on the IWT.
These come immediately after a meeting convened by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
(India has placed the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan in abeyance)
The Indian Govt and political leadership has made it clear, blood and water won't flow together.
There is a coordinated push by Pakistani media and western platforms and think tanks to project Islamabad as a victim and get India to relent on sharing waters of the Indus River System.
India has kept the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance, under which it shared water with Pakistan after its role in the Pahalgam terror attack of 2025.
The articles, published over the last few weeks, deliberately ignore or downplay Pakistan's role in terrorism and treaty violations. London-based think tank Chatham House was the most prominent, playing the role of pushing Pakistan's agenda.
On April 15, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari chaired a high-level meeting on water resources in which he expressed alarm over India's suspension of the 1960 pact, framing it as the "weaponisation of water" and directing diplomatic and legal measures to safeguard Pakistan's rights.
"President Asif Ali Zardari chaired a meeting on water resources, raising concern over India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, and directing transparent, declared load shedding to minimise power outages," the president's official handle posted on X on April 15.
UK-based Chatham House published an expert comment titled 'India and Pakistan still cannot agree to restore the Indus Waters Treaty – but re-engagement could help bring lasting peace'. Authored by Bhargabi Bharadwaj and Beatrice Mosello, it described the Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 civilians were killed, merely as a "militant attack".
The Indus Water Treaty was signed after a decade of India's Independence in 1960 by the then Government of India, led by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and Pakistan's Head of State, General Ayub Khan.
The treaty, facilitated by the World Bank, allows lower riparian state Pakistan to use the waters of the western rivers of the Indus River System, and emerged as one of the most successful water-sharing treaties in the world.
Pakistan's agriculture and power generation depend heavily on the waters of the Indus system.
The Chatham House article makes no mention of the word "terrorism", despite Pakistan's documented support for jihadis and India's long-standing warnings that terrorists will not be treated as proxies, and cross-border attacks will be met with direct and appropriate responses.
Former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal called it "an insidious article". He said, "Chatham House is helping Pakistan capitalise on its new 'peace credentials'.
The usual pro- Pak games by the British establishment. The article advocates external intervention to unblock India’s suspension of the Treaty...".
The United Nations Special Rapporteurs have formal request to India to answer their questions about Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
New Delhi has maintained complete silence.
Writing for ‘EuropaWire’, Dimitra Staikou, a Greek lawyer, writer, and journalist, noted that by placing the treaty in abeyance following the Pahalagam terror attack, India effectively gave a message that water and terrorism are no longer distinct domains.
India’s response, articulated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the Red Fort on Aug 15, 2025 reframed the debate with clarity: a treaty that allows rivers originating in India to sustain an adversary while Indian farmers face water stress is inherently untenable.
The message was equally direct — blood and water cannot flow together, and nuclear coercion will no longer dictate Indian policy.
India's decision on the 'choice of abeyance' — rather than outright termination — constitutes a proportionate and reversible legal response that preserves the possibility of renegotiation.
India’s position, therefore, reflects a calibrated exercise of sovereign rights rather than an arbitrary breach of international commitments.
No comments:
Post a Comment