Indian Home Minister Amit Shah has once again made provocative remarks, saying that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) “will never be restored” and India will construct a canal to divert water meant for Pakistan to Rajasthan.
This rhetoric reflects India’s growing belligerence toward a treaty that has ensured water stability between the two nations since 1960.
However, such plans are detached from geographic and engineering reality. The Indus River originates in Tibet, flows through Ladakh, and into Pakistan.
Diverting it toward the arid lands of Rajasthan is not merely difficult — it is practically impossible.
This is not a pipeline that can simply be rerouted; it’s a river whose natural flow is dictated by geography, valleys, mountain ranges, and borders.
Diverting the Indus would require trillions of rupees and decades of effort, assuming it could even be achieved, which experts say is extremely unlikely.
Even within India, this move faces opposition. Occupied Jammu and Kashmir’s ex Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has questioned New Delhi’s motives, asking why water is being diverted from drought-prone Kashmir to states like Punjab, which already have access to three rivers.
He warned against robbing his region of its fair share while pointing out Punjab’s own history of refusing water to Jammu and Kashmir.
From an international legal standpoint, downstream countries have the right to uninterrupted water flow — a principle embedded in water-sharing treaties globally.
Thus, Pakistan’s claim to the waters of the Indus and its western tributaries remains valid and protected under international law.
Islamabad has repeatedly stressed that any unilateral withdrawal from the IWT would be viewed as an act of war.
India’s repeated violations of the treaty — through dam constructions and hydroelectric projects that affect the natural flow of water — represent what experts call “water aggression.”
These acts are slow, strategic attempts to undermine Pakistan’s water security without firing a single bullet.
Pakistan has raised these concerns with the United Nations, the World Bank, and other relevant international bodies.
Former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari also warned that in the age of climate change and water stress, such provocations could trigger the world’s first nuclear conflict over water.
He made it clear that blocking Pakistan’s water would be seen not just as aggression but as a war-triggering act.
Pakistan’s defense institutions have issued a clear position: if India nears completion of any dam or project that poses a strategic threat, Pakistan will respond effectively.
These projects — built with billions in investment, displacing communities, and altering the region’s environment — are vulnerable. Pakistan has the capability to destroy such installations with long-range precision strikes.
India’s Harike and Madhopur headworks — crucial nodes in its water infrastructure — already lie within Pakistan’s artillery range. This proximity serves as a strategic reminder that any aggression will be met with proportionate force.
While Pakistan remains committed to diplomacy, it is equally prepared for defense. India’s water-based provocations will not go unanswered. Islamabad’s response, if provoked, will be decisive and focused on preserving national interests.
Amit Shah’s recent statement exposes a deeper contradiction in India’s narrative regarding the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. While Indian authorities initially framed the move as a direct response to a specific ‘terror incident’, Shah’s assertion that water was “unjustifiably” flowing to Pakistan suggests a different reality.
His remarks reveal that the intent to cut off water supplies existed prior to the incident, and that the alleged attack is being used as a convenient justification.
This indicates a premeditated plan by India to dismantle the treaty framework under the guise of retaliation, undermining the credibility of its stated motives and highlighting an aggressive shift in its long-term policy.
