'Nobody dare stop water of Pakistan': DG ISPR warns India of 'generational consequences' over IWT

[ghazi52]

'Nobody dare stop water of Pakistan': DG ISPR warns India of 'generational consequences' over IWT​

Pakistan’s response to Indian aggression was measured and limited to military targets, says DG ISPR.

News Desk
May 18, 2025

The chief military spokesperson has warned India over its threat to cut Pakistan’s share of water from the Indus River system, saying such a move would trigger consequences lasting for generations, as tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals continue to surge.

If India weaponises water and blocks the flow of an Indus River tributary, DG ISPR Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said, “It is some madman who can think that he can stop water of 240 million plus people of this country. I hope that time doesn’t come, but it will be such actions that the world will see and the consequences of that we will fight for years and decades to come. Nobody dare stop water of Pakistan.” He said this in an interview with Arab News.

The warning comes after New Delhi last month unilaterally suspended the decades-old Indus Waters Treaty, following a deadly attack on tourists in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), which India blamed on Pakistan — an allegation Islamabad has firmly denied.

The escalating crisis led to cross-border fire and military strikes. On the night of May 6-7, India launched a series of strikes across the Line of Control (LoC) and extended attacks to sites on Pakistan’s mainland, claiming to target militant positions. Pakistan responded by striking 26 Indian military targets, halting its operations once a US-brokered ceasefire came into effect on May 10.

Despite the ceasefire, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced this week that India would stop the flow of water from the Indus River system to Pakistan — a decision Islamabad has long described as a direct threat to its survival and an act of war.

According to officials, India’s recent strikes killed at least 40 civilians, including 22 women and children. In response, Pakistan targeted Indian military sites, carefully avoiding civilian infrastructure.

“Pakistan armed forces are a professional armed forces and we adhere to the commitments that we make, and we follow in letter and spirit the instructions of the political government and the commitments that they hold,” DG ISPR said. “As far as Pakistan Army is concerned, this ceasefire will hold easily and there have been confidence building measures in communication between both the sides,” he added.

Both nations have already accused each other of ceasefire violations since the truce began. Chaudhry emphasised Pakistan’s measured response: “If any violation occurs, our response is always there ... but it is only directed at those posts and those positions from where the violations of the ceasefire happen. We never target the civilians. We never target any civil infrastructure.”

He further informed that India lost six aircraft and a sophisticated Russian-made S-400 air defence system during the four-day conflict. Among the downed jets were several French Rafale fighters. Earlier reports had suggested five aircraft losses, but Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif confirmed earlier this week that the actual number was six.

“I can confirm that the sixth aircraft is a Mirage 2000,” Lt Gen Chaudhry stated. “We only targeted the aircraft ... We could have taken out more, but we showed restraint,” he maintained. He further warned that the potential for renewed conflict remains high unless the core issue of Kashmir is addressed.

“Their policy on Kashmir is not working,” DG ISPR said, adding. “Till the time Indians don’t sit and talk about Kashmir, then (as) two countries we sit, and we find a solution to it, the conflict potential is there.”

'Nobody dare stop water of Pakistan': DG ISPR warns India of 'generational consequences' over IWT | The Express Tribune

Pakistan’s response to Indian aggression was measured and limited to military targets

tribune.com.pk

 

[ghazi52]

Politics of hate​

Aisha Khan
May 19, 2025


THE Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) that stood the test of time for 65 years is under severe strain.

Many things have changed since it was assiduously crafted with the help of the World Bank in 1960.

While the treaty provides a dispute-resolution mechanism that has been used in the past to address complaints, this time the issue has taken a sordid turn. At the heart of the matter are two things most responsible for the current impasse — i) demographic changes that are outstripping supply with shrinking resources and rising demand, ii) the emergence of politics of hate and division fuelling religious nationalism to fan public sentiment.

The post-Cold War attempt to create a rules-based international order is under assault from a rising wave of populist demagoguery. The inciting rhetoric takes different shapes and forms, but the message of punitive action remains the same.

Now it is the heft of nations that determines acceptance or rejection of its unilateral actions by the global community. The arbitrary suspension of the IWT is part of this wider malaise. Nations are now looking increasingly inward, taking a more distributive approach to negotiations and using muscular diplomacy to assert their agenda.

The IWT has a past history of invoking the dispute-resolution clause.

The issues between the two countries are no longer merely about territorial disputes but have taken a more insidious turn.

In 2007, the dispute resolution process over India’s design of the Baglihar hydroelectric plant on the Chenab was addressed by a neutral expert to determine the freeboard of India’s proposed dam.

In 2013, the Court of Arbitration rendered a decision on India’s diversion of a tributary of the Jhelum for the Kishenganga hydroelectric project. India was allowed to divert water for the Kishenganga project while maintaining a minimum specified storage in the reservoir and minimum release of nine cubic metres of water per second down river into the Jhelum tributary.

However, trouble started brewing in 2016 following the unresolved technical differences with regard to the Kishenganga hydroelectric project and India’s announcement of starting the Ratle hydroelectric project on the Chenab.

The strident tone adopted by India after the 2014 elections has continued to grow and alter political thinking with a palpable shift in its relationship dynamics with Pakistan. The already tense bilateral relations came under acute strain after the Pulwama terror attack in India for which it blamed Pakistan (without proof). This also marked the beginning of public statements from India threatening to use water as a weapon to punish Pakistan for its alleged role in sponsoring terrorism.

The revocation of Article 370 in 2019 stripping Indian-occupied Kashmir of its special status and its sharp rejection by Pakistan further poisoned the chalice.

In 2016 when Pakistan invoked the arbitral process via a Request For Arbitration, the water was already turning from muddy to murky. The RFA outlined seven disputes related to the disputed projects related to design and permissibility of pondage levels, submerged power intakes, low-level sediment outlets, spillway designs, and permissible freeboard intakes. India’s refusal to participate in the arbitral process led to a default appointment procedure for a five-year pause (2016-22) imposed by the World Bank. With heightened levels of animosity and a volley of threats hurled at Pakistan, India decried the ‘illegitimacy’ of the Court of Arbitration via a letter to the World Bank (Dec 21, 2022).

Parallel to this, India requested the appointment of a neutral expert under the Indus treaty. Pakistan’s refusal to participate resulted in the default appointment procedure for the appointment of a neutral expert after a five-year pause. In 2023, the Court of Arbitration issued an award upholding its competence for addressing the matter. In 2025, the neutral expert also issued an award upholding its competence to address the seven points of conflict.

The main problem is not overlapping jurisdictional competencies and their inconsistent outcomes. The real issue is the deepening divide between India and Pakistan. The issues between the two countries are no longer merely about territorial disputes but have taken a more insidious turn. The last 15 years have seen a sharp increase in animosity bordering on intense hatred. This trend has to be curbed.

The tragic and condemnable Pahalgam incident has, once again, ignited passions blinding reason and bringing the two countries to the brink of war. The unilateral suspension of the IWT by India is a sign of a new trend that blurs the line between separate incidents and uses a no-holds-barred approach to retaliation. The two countries have a history of bad blood laden with accusations of interference with the intent of fomenting disaffection and destabilsation. Such passionate feelings based on the politics of identity are a dangerous portent for the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

The multilayered dispute resolution mechanism of the fraying IWT must be seen in the context of the fractious geopolitical history of the region marked by its hydrological topography.

The IWT can no longer only be seen through the technical lens of neutral experts. Given the relationship dynamics the intent and ability to do harm needs to be examined by a Court of Arbitration. Judicial interpretation has the provision for taking a broader view while neutral experts are limited by their narrow mandate. Both countries can do more with less water if hate and hostility are not part of the equation.

When the dust has settled, both countries need to embark on a sincere journey of truth and reconciliation. The need for working together has never been greater than it is today.

The writer is head of the Civil Society Coalition for Climate Change.

[email protected]

Published in Dawn, May 19th, 2025