India rieiterates Indus waters treaty in abeyance, slams Pakistan remarks
India rejected Pakistan’s criticism over river projects, reiterating that the Indus Waters Treaty remains in abeyance due to cross-border terrorism concerns. The MEA said Pakistan’s objections and arbitration claims are invalid, asserting India’s sovereign rights over its hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir
New Delhi: Rejecting Pakistan’s criticism of two river projects, India on Friday reiterated its consistent stance on the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), saying that the agreement remains in abeyance until Pakistan completely stops cross-border terrorism.
The reaction from Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) came after Pakistan said India was seeking to “weaponise water” by advancing the Chenab-Beas Link Tunnel Project and plans to flush silt from the Salal Dam reservoir.
“We have suspended the Indus Waters Treaty and kept it in abeyance until Pakistan completely stops cross-border terrorism,” MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said while replying to a question on Pakistan Foreign Ministry’s statement during a weekly media briefing in New Delhi on Friday.
When asked about Pakistan Foreign Ministry’s statement on Swiss Ambassador’s visit to Jammu and Kashmir, Jaiswal responded, “The Swiss Ambassador visited Jammu and Kashmir and held several meetings there. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, and the Swiss Ambassador, or any other ambassador, is free to visit.”
Last month, India had rejected the latest award issued by the “illegally constituted” Court of Arbitration (CoA) – purportedly constituted under the IWT 1960 – as “null and void”.
“The illegally constituted so-called Court of Arbitration (CoA) has, on 15 May 2026, issued what it termed an award concerning maximum pondage supplemental to the award on issues of general interpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty,” MEA spokesperson stated in response to media queries on the issue.
“India categorically rejects the present so-called award, just as it has firmly rejected all prior pronouncements of the illegally constituted CoA. India has never recognised the establishment of this so-called CoA. Any proceeding, award, or decision issued by it is null and void. India’s decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance remains in force,” he added.
The IWT was signed between India and Pakistan on September 19, 1960, concerning the utilisation of the waters of the Indus system rivers.
After last year’s heinous Pahalgam terror attack, India exercised its rights as a sovereign nation under international law and placed IWT in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjured its support for cross-border terrorism.
“Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty. No Court of Arbitration, much less this illegally constituted arbitral body which has no existence in the eye of law, has the jurisdiction to examine the legality of India’s actions in exercise of its rights as a sovereign,” the MEA had stated in June 2025.
Last year, the MEA had slammed the “so-called” Court of Arbitration for issuing what it characterized as a “supplemental award” on its competence concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
“India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India’s position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and consequently any proceedings before this forum and any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void,” the MEA had then responded to the CoA’s move.
India questioned such “charades” at Pakistan’s behest, terming them as “desperate attempts” to escape accountability for its role as the global epicentre of terrorism.
“Pakistan’s resort to this fabricated arbitration mechanism is consistent with its decades-long pattern of deception and manipulation of international forums,” the MEA stated earlier.
